2 Jul
2010
2 Jul
'10
10:33 a.m.
Louigi Verona wrote:
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