2 Jul
2010
2 Jul
'10
12:46 a.m.
On Thursday 01 July 2010 17:51:18 Joep L. Blom wrote:
drew Roberts wrote:
I don't know enough about jazz to agree with you or the author, it is just
something I cam across the other day andthen when you posted, I went back and
searched for it to let you see it.
Someone else having some thoughts on jazz and
copyright:
Are Bad Copyright Laws Killing Jazz And Harming Jazz Musicians?
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100615/0255059823.shtml
Drew,
Thanks for your reaction but I disagree with the author of the reference
you gave me. Joep
all the best,
drew I think that if you use the original product as such,
i.e. in samples,
borrows, remixes etc. you don't make original music, you use the skills
of others to make something and I am of the opinion that you have to
acknowledge, perhaps with money, perhaps otherwise, that you use the
product of someone else. In my opinion that is in the same vein as
plagiarism,
I think you and I had a different read on the article then. Likely one of us
or perhaps both have a misunderstanding.
I took the article to be speaking (at least partly) to the case (at least in
the US) of statutory or compulsory licenses which allow for covers to be done
of published sheet music and / or of recorded songs. You can force a
songwriter to give you a license at a set price even if they do not want to.
*But* and here is where I think it hits jazz, you have to stick closely to
the melody and the wording (I think that's how it goes, could someone who
knows speak to this?) Since jazz (often?) involves improvisations on the
melody you can't get a license unless the songwriter *wants* to give you one
you are at a disadvantage legally.
(This may make for more creativity due to the extra effort needed but I think
this is what I got from the piece.)
A musician is a creator of sounds with his personal
characteristics. On piano e.g typical Oscar Peterson sound, originating
in his personal touch, technique (and musicality), cannot be copied by
another pianists, although most jazz-pianists (myself included) use
typical Peterson 'inventions' in our solos. That however is completely
different from using some sound-bites of Peterson's recordings and
mixing it, eventually with other sound-bites, and call it your own
music. That has - in my humble opinion - nothing to do with making
music. Every kid with some computer knowledge can do that nowadays but
no skills whatsoever is needed (other than understanding the manual of
the programs).
Luckily, as I wrote earlier, I ( and many of my colleagues and friends)
master our instruments and can create music, inventing new chords and
melodies. We use only the creative minds of composers (e.g. Gershwin,
Ellington, Bennie Green, Brad Meldow, to name a few younger
composers/performers) as basis to play and improvise upon.
This is what I think the article was talking about and was saying is
considered illegal. (if the works are still covered by copyright.)
But, as I said in my former mail, I'm of a
different generation where
the acquisition of skills is most important for the production of music
and these skills have to be maintained every day again.
Sorry if this sounds a little as a rant.
Joep
(Posted back to LAU due to the questions.)
all the best,
drew