Isn't that subjective though? If that weren't true then:
"One man's trash is another man's treasure" wouldn't exist.
Also, the idea of "nose-to-the grindstone" taking to mean you're passionate about something is also stereotypical in nature. Yes, it shows your dedication and passion, but why try to "measure up?"
You hear this when talking production all the time. Sure, you want your production to sound as good or better than the pros, but again, you are limiting yourself by comparing and that is disheartening because you should be you - not someone else.
This is why I feel bad for arrangers because they always get their tracks compared - not saying it's a bad thing; however, some get arranging and covering something confused.
The critique I got about Blossoms on another forum while great, the fact that my version was compared to the original (and I didn't even use half of it), was nice, but at the same time not-so-much because it was/is different and I always make it a point to point that out although the music should tell you that itself. (No way will you outdo Tchaik. Thanks although I was never trying to)
I wanted to make it mine - not better than his! Huge difference!
That's from the arranging/composition standpoint. Some are better at forming ideas from what's established and writing around it, then starting from scratch.
That's ironic part, though because rarely if ever does a musician play a song exactly like it is written and get criticized for doing so because it sounds better. He or she isn't trying to show up the original piece. (The orchestra is probably the only exception, but they're a stereotypical group, too. Not so much anymore, but they were)
But who's to say that just because one clicked a mouse as opposed to one who pressed down a key has any less passion for his/her craft though the method of making music is different?
Tchaik didn't have what I do now, but imagine if he did, I wouldn't call him less passionate then when he didn't have it nor does it make me more passionate than he because I have it.
The same emotions can be felt - no matter where the music comes from or what the music is.
Someone gave a critique about the Waltz and how he perhaps felt when he wrote it which probably dictated why he wrote it the way he did. Now, right off, I won't go that deep, but who's to say the same emotions aren't there - despite being a different color. There really is a different story being told within Blossoms here and where the story is being told is in a different place, too.
For me, using the Waltz-Blossoms comparison, his story was told in the melody moreso than the harmony although the harmony supported it. With Blossoms, it's in the harmony. As far as the verse chorus - the melody (actual and/or implied) stayed the same, but the harmony is what changed the piece and yes, I attached a beat, but the harmony is the main catalyst for the mood/tone/character change.
There's the bridge which has its own "melody," but it still connects the chorus and verse; yet, it's also the most obvious thing that denotes this song being different from a "what'd I use" perspective. The bridge is not at all like Waltz except it doesn't leave the central key. (The original as to pass though another chord that's clearly different to get there) Both have a dark tone; however, Blossoms tone overall isn't bright, so there's not a jarring shift
Waltz's Bridge: Bm----> G Major -----> D Major (From D Major to b minor with no setup; then G so suddenly to setup D) I take that back, the V is used to get to D; however, G major was maintained longer than expected. If longer than a phrase, it's not tonicization and it lulls your ear to think it's a new key.
Blossoms Bridge: Gm chord, but A---->.D. I never left D. (D--->Gm chord (still in D) = setup is the A)
He never left the key either, but the tonal center does change when you hear the progression. The way Blossoms progresses, you know you're still in D Major - especially given the iv-V-I and V-iv-V-I in the bridge. In fact, he uses tonicization near the end of the song to get to D. (How jazz/latin do it very often with the ii-V-I before playing the actual I; yet, with the circular way keys/chord progressions work, it's not difficult to find the tonal center. Autumn Leaves and Girl From Ipanema are extraordinary examples)
Of course, there's the theme. I decided to make the harp the thematic instrument here. It's interesting because I think I wrote the strings (chords) first and also did this for the bridge; yet, it sounds like I wrote the harp first because everyone else is following it. (And yes, it's also treated very differently)
Though the bridge (half of it) appears first, I actually wrote that section (all of it) last due to asking myself "How can I make this piece different"?
I had to figure out the progression and how it functions within itself (the bridge), but how it will function/relate to the rest of the song. Ironically, it's progression is very similar to how the verse and chorus progress.
Of course, the rhythm is different - being in Common Time.
Then the bass line! Let's just say I had too much fun with this! But it also helped shape the character.
Different =/= better in this context because it's still subjective. However something as simple as adding color tones to a chord or playing a scale between chords or their roots sounds "better" in the sense of "How you got there" as opposed to "getting there ASAP!"
So, yeah, it's a combination of alot of things whether you're arranging or composing from scratch; however, blandness and fakeness are only applied when comparing one thing to another.
It's be nice to stand out, but sometimes you have to attempt to fit in first! Alas, don't try to measure yourself to others or you won't be able to do either. Food for thought!
It isn't necessary for me to be like Tchaikovsky to like "ballet" music or like Eminem to write a hiphop tune. It may help influence what and/or how something is written, but these are still my pieces - despite there influence on them. Artists tell people this all the time - especially when the question is posed to them and audiences here those influences; however, the artist maintains his or her uniqueness.
Honestly, if someone were to ask me that question, I wouldn't know what to say - because it's as if they're expecting me to sound that way. When if their ears or good, they can tell by listening. The music should tell the story, not the artist. Not slighting singer/songwriters, but they would say the same thing. They just help get it across by how it's sung/played. (Waltz/Blossoms again. Two totally different tales though "similar" songs. This goes for any and all arrangements)