easycure

To Mario: I don’t find it contradictory at all; furthermore, the concept of reinterpretation was more explanatory than anything else, but the argument was logically valid both before and now: the key point lies in the distinction between originality and innovation. Originality means, as I already told you, not necessarily revolutionizing, but also presenting known patterns in a personal way. The answer is all here. If we admit that originality is different from innovation, how could originality exist as a standalone concept if not essentially as a personal reinterpretation of known patterns? It’s a necessity. Thus, here’s the answer: originality is a personal expression, that is, unique, of known patterns. It does not disregard them, but reworks them, as is obvious from the uniqueness of human expression. What, therefore, is not reworking, that is, not original, seems to me inferior, but that does not contradict at all what I already told you.

Zuckina, always very, very timely :-) ..so maybe those who ramble about insults will realize, regarding opinions, that presumption is a very relative concept, especially when one makes certain statements without the slightest understanding of the facts. See you soon.

"from" you, not "for" you :-D

Hey big guy! I'm glad it's one of your favorite albums, and I also agree on the tracks you mentioned!! See you in the review about Dream Theater ;-)

Hi Jimmone! :-D

I will also trip myself up, dear Orion, but as you can see, I have found a way to respond to you once again without any problems. No contradiction as you see, no difficulty. I await your reply.

X mario: I think the answer to your post has already arrived in my previous ones, so I suggest you refer to those :-)

On the other hand, this ties back to the earlier discussion: if expression, inasmuch as it is personal, is unique, it is obviously original, regardless of whether it draws on or more or less adheres to already known stylistic elements, which are therefore not denied at all. What is denied is their reproduction, not their reference. With this, let’s once again put an end to these discussions that I should frame more in terms of opinion and less in absolute terms. It seems quite silly that a discourse should change in substance just because I might add a "in my opinion" at the beginning of the sentence, don’t you think? Since nothing would change in substance, and since I repeat that having written all this it is OBVIOUSLY my opinion, I’ll spare myself the "in my opinion". Okay?

Then, once again you misunderstood: originality does not impose innovation; THEREFORE, as I wrote before, it is obvious that it is legitimate to refer to established stylistic elements. But originality, that is, uniqueness, requires that these established stylistic elements be reinterpreted, personalized. There is REinterpretation, which as such is not a remake, but a revisitation; this is what I meant.

No, it is not true that expression exists without originality. If an expression truly exists as such, that is, it is not merely a style exercise, then it is unique because it is personal. But if it is unique, then it is original. That content exists without expression, as you put it, I can also accept, meaning it exists but is imperfect. Essentially, we can agree on this. What you are doing is downplaying what I have written, not negating it.