2 Jul
2010
2 Jul
'10
11:07 a.m.
Hey Joep!
In the end it comes down to values. I consider a discussion to be resolved
if we 1) agree or else 2) find points on which we differ
I think you and me are 2).
I do not share your view on spirituality in music. To me music is more than
just fun or displaying skill to then get a reward. And there is nothing to
be explained here, this is simply true for me and not true for you.
When you say that sampled music is not music, it is your opinion with which
I respectfully do not agree. When you say that no skill is required to work
with samples, than here I can confidently tell you that you are simply
wrong. Working with samples is extremely difficult if you want a good
result. You should consider the possibility that you did not hear good
sampled music, it is a unique art. You may call that not music but, say,
mash ups, but it is certainly art when you look at best examples. And
performing sampled music, just like playing piano, requires hours and hours
of everyday practice - no kidding.
When you say that people spend hours and hours playing music and that they
deserve a reward, I must add that I typically agree, provided their work is
actually good (who would care about a bad song which took 100 hours to
produce). The emphasis on hard work is irrelevant, though. Some composers
work really quickly, some work slowly, it depends. But there are many
examples of people not caring much about rewards. A scientist in Russia got
a Noble prize and refused to take it, because he does not want money. His
main reward is the result of his work.
Of course, as always, I am not saying composers should not eat. But I do not
believe there is any problem making a living.
But you did raise a very interesting point. it is a point that asking
permission to use your work is courtesy. I can say that I completely agree
IF we are speaking about colleagues or friends or generally people that know
you. I agree that if I know my friend hates Baroque music it would not be a
good thing to take his images and make a mash up with Baroque music on top.
And anyway, would be nice to inform him and ask him. But generally, it would
be courtesy on his side if he says "Yes, sure, use it".
In fact, not allowing to use your work is almost always bad. The reasons are
almost always nasty. It's not about starving, really. And if my friend tells
me "Can I use your melody", I cannot imagine how I can tell him "no"
and not
feel that I've betrayed the very essence of what being a composer is.
But what should be done between friends and close colleagues should not be
put into law. While I expect my friend to tell me that he plans to use my
melody in his composition, simply because it is courtesy, I do not expect
you, a person on the other side of the globe, to be obliged to do the same.
You can do it if you want and I'd be glad to know, but I do not oblige you
and I don't think I should.
Some copyright in close relationships is good. It is copyright as a law
that's causing problems.
Hope you find my opinion interesting ;)
Cheers!
Louigi.
On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 12:33 PM, Joep L. Blom <jlblom(a)neuroweave.nl> wrote:
Louigi Verona wrote:
--
Louigi Verona
http://www.louigiverona.ru/
guys!
an interesting point was raised here that if you use someone else's work
without creating original music, then you do not use your skill and thus owe
something to someone.
this, in my opinion, is a vague generalization.
Louigi,
I wrote that and I don't think it is vague or a generalization.
It is very simple, someone who has honed his skills over years and
eventually can use it for his creativity to produce something that's
worthwhile for others to hear - be it a composition, a rendering of a
composition or an improvisation (free or based on a composition) - is
entitled:
A to get recognition for his work and
B get the financial reward as valued by the audience (be it via the box
office, the record company er else).
I, as a performer would be very annoyed if somebody uses a recording of me
(solo or in a combo or big band) without recognizing the work I did and not
asking me if he/she could use my recording. In my eyes that is simply
courtesy. I don't mean he/she has to pay me, that has nothing to do with it.
1. sometimes it does require quite a lot of
skill. one thing to just take
samples, another - make something decent out of it all.
I disagree. Taking samples has nothing to do with skills, only with using
the skills of somebody else who developed the program used for ripping.
2. taking samples and working with them is a lot
of fun and i would argue
does require skill, simply skill of a different sort than composing original
music. a lot of people who love to do mash ups can do original music as
well, me included. i have a whole collection of tunes where the principle
was to use only someone else's samples. it's a very creative process and
there are masters of that kind of thing around, which are admired and which
do wonders with those samples.
I'm not talking about the gratitude you get from playing with samples. It
can be great fun for yourself to do that. It is something else if you sells
it A as music (which it isn't, in my opinion) and B give not credit to the
original creator.
3. i think a lot of the problems with who owes
who raises from the fact
that music is so reward heavy. if you are an artist, you expect money, fame
and respect. but we forget that talent in itself is a great-great gift. and
not all people have inspiration and ability to create something wondeful.
If you mean musically, sure but why is that a problem? they may have other
skills which are better suited to their personality. But that's not the
problem. The problem nowadays is that most people want to be great
performers without the talent and the drive to develop the necessary skills
by years and years of tedious practice.
and strictly speaking, although we do attribute from
an economic perspective everything to a person
who composed something, we
should not be blind to spiritual side of things. many composers and talented
artists in other fields often say that they feel they are driven by some
power when they write their works. and this delicate spiritual experience
which endlessly enriches the soul of an artist is such an important gift,
that at times i think the artist benefits by simply being an artist. it is a
benefit which obviously not a lot of people can or want to recognize, but
it's there and those who do not see it obviously never experienced the power
of inspiration and the boundless happiness that creativity gives.
This is utter bullshit! I agree completely that creativity is one of the
purest joys. I am always the most happy on stage performing with my combo.
But spiritual experience!, give me a break! There is nothing spiritual in
it. Only the purest joy that you can use the skills, acquired over the years
to give the audience your creativity and be rewarded by it (not financially,
that is only a necessity for bread and butter, etc. as has been said several
times in this thread).
Every craftsman experiences it. A friend of mine is cabinet maker. He has
the same creative experiences when he is working on a cabinet and I think
all craftsmen have it. But also amateurs experience it. when a student of
mine plays a piece (either jazz or classical) and he performs it well (even
in his own eyes) he experiences it. But spiritual comes never in it. If I
understand your meaning correctly.
so i think in general people do not owe anything to artist. if we go that
rode, then we all owe to each other and artists
are in a huge debt to people
who build houses, cook food and, of course, we are all in debted to
plumbers.
Yes we are indebted to all people doing jobs for us (plumbers, doctors,
workmen, etc. But we have an effective way of coping with it: it is called
payment.
Sorry if I sound somewhat rantish,
Joep