Ripping off?

[ginnboonmiller]

government composers

Where can I sign up for the government composers program? That sounds awesome.

Become a professor of composition at any state-supported university.

Rick "easy-peasy, but you have to fit into the academic mold to get the required doctorate" Denney

I've worked in the Music Departments of state run universities plently of years. That ain't no composers program. That crap can destroy a creative career.

[Rick Denney]

That ain't no composers program. That crap can destroy a creative career.

And that would be the point.

Rick "noting that Williams spends his days composing" Denney

[ginnboonmiller]

That ain't no composers program. That crap can destroy a creative career.

And that would be the point.

Rick "noting that Williams spends his days composing" Denney

So do I. I'm still looking for the government composers program to help me out for it, though.

ginnboon "gets the point and still thinks it's a garbage point" miller

[Trevor Bjorklund]

This is an interesting and important issue, especially as we grow into the age of digital technology. Beethoven learned orchestration by hand-copying Haydn scores. Brahms' Variations on a Theme by Paganini introduces someone else's music and then develops it/expands it into a unique and personalized piece, although based on that original theme (and there is no question as to the nature of his use of the music - the title says it all). John Williams, grabbing a few bars from Holst's The Planets (Mars) for a certain Star Wars scene (Death Star blowing up) does not, but he reinterprets the music into his own piece, which itself is reinterpreted through the lens of a completely different medium. It is certainly an appropriate use of the idea of the piece but does Williams have the right to lay claim to his whole score if some of it was actually written by someone else? And make a ton of money off of it?

What has become increasingly problematic in other contemporary musical realms, like pop music and rap, is the use of "samples," which are not only someone else's music, but are taken from recordings and presented generally unchanged (except maybe tempo and sometimes pitch-shifted).

Can someone lay claim to a chord progression? Probably not. A melody? Questionable. A particular kind of orchestration technique? Not likely. What happens when multiple "categories" are borrowed together? How far can one go before it is out and out "stealing?" Should a composer include footnotes and a kind of bibliography? It's a fascinating topic.

[Trevor Bjorklund]

I don't get it - why all the enmity towards composers who happen to work in a university? Some are interesting musicians writing the next chapter of music and some are not. They represent the entire range in style, output, and quality as much as any other field and also composers who don't have institutional teaching gigs. It should be noted that 99% of all music ever written (and including that being written right now) is doomed to the trash bin of history - its "quality" doesn't fit that which determines a masterwork (or whatever causes a piece to permanently make it into the public awareness)... it doesn't matter who writes it!

Back to the issue raised by the original post though - what is the difference between a composer using another's music and then claiming it as his own and an instrument maker using another's tuba design and claiming it as his own? Both require a working knowledge of the craft and materials, both will get used (their provenance unremarked upon) by many people who don't care. Only the elite even notice the difference and get into debates about it! But I know that many on this forum take issue and must have a reason for it.

[Rick Denney]

I don't get it - why all the enmity towards composers who happen to work in a university? Some are interesting musicians writing the next chapter of music and some are not.

Nothing wrong with being an academic, and nothing wrong with working at a state university.

The complaint (at least my complaint) was about neither. The complaint was about what people in these positions say about people whose art does not need academic subsidy. As those whose compositions only receive critical review from like-minded academic peers, they often (of course, not always) deride music by those who are well-paid for doing it well in an industry that is one of the remaining few that actually uses original orchestral music.

This is true in all the arts, by the way. It is no less true in the visual arts or in literature. I don't mind academics. I am not a fan of academic snobs.

Rick "yes, trolling a bit" Denney

[Rick Denney]

Rick "noting that Williams spends his days composing" Denney

So do I. I'm still looking for the government composers program to help me out for it, though.

ginnboon "gets the point and still thinks it's a garbage point" miller

Would you allow the point if you happened to like Williams's work?

Is the measure of art therefore your taste?

Are you not paid a tax-funded salary to do basically the same thing that many movie composers do (which is compose music and teach)?

Rick "just wondering" Denney

[ginnboonmiller]

Rick "noting that Williams spends his days composing" Denney

So do I. I'm still looking for the government composers program to help me out for it, though.

ginnboon "gets the point and still thinks it's a garbage point" miller

Would you allow the point if you happened to like Williams's work?

Is the measure of art therefore your taste?

Are you not paid a tax-funded salary to do basically the same thing that many movie composers do (which is compose music and teach)?

Rick "just wondering" Denney

No.

Yes, as far as I'm concerned. I think that's true for all of us.

No, and not just because I don't teach anymore, but because I was paid to teach. I still write for the same rate that I wrote for back then, and even then, I was paid by the government, students through tuition, fundraising, endowments, and everything else that funds a university.


(far more entertaining responses to follow once I'm home from my private university job, whose money spends just as easily as your tax dollars do, and also has some of your tax dollars, and don't forget it.)

[tuneitup]

Okay this going a bit off topic, but it somehow relates to giving proper credit to a proper people. What "academic" composers, from what I've been told, don't like about some film composers is that there are a quite huge number of ghost writers involved. Sometimes with a credit, sometimes not. Occasionally you can see it on the credits at the end that there are composers and orchestrators, and we don't know what's the percentage of the music that orchestrators have written. As for the ghost writers, they are sometimes rather famous composers. No, I am not going to give any names out. Just think about it, after the final cut of the film, the composer have to write a symphony worth amount of music within a few days, make necessary adjustment and record it. (Of course, they can have some head start on ideas and stuff, but I will omit the details.) How often people can create a high quality work in that condition, and how often do new movies with new sound track come out? I am not just talking about blockbuster movies, but all the independent films with real orchestras. It is the same idea as any Lady Gaga song which public only seem to give her the credit while there are a lot of people involved in creating it. Traditionally, a piece of classical music is written by one single individuals (with some exceptions) from an original idea to orchestrating to giving the final editing. Many of them still do, but they don't want to be compared with a committee of "a composer." I hope this makes sense, and thank you for reading my rant.

[Tom]

It's not that simple. Golijov and Ward-Bergeman have worked together and are good friends. Ward-Bergeman knew and gave permission to Golijov to use the "melody and scale fragments" of it in the composition Sidereus.

It's all a question of Golijov giving appropriate credit to Ward-Bergeman for what was used and if what he used was more than the two had agreed to. There is credit given, but is the credit language sufficient given how much of Ward-Bergeman's work was used or should it be made far more clear?

Should the work be called an arrangement by Golijov instead of an original composition? Many would say yes, absolutely.

Were the orchestras that comissioned the work of Golijov ripped off or mislead? It is not clear how much they knew of the Golijov / Ward-Bergeman connection, but I suspect they might feel at least a little cheated knowing that the vast majority of the composition is actually the original work of Ward-Bergeman rather than Golijov.

<Snip>
And if W-B isn't going to sue, then is it really a big deal?

If it doesn't matter to W-B, then no, it shouldn't matter to us or be even remotely a big deal.

[sloan]

... The complaint was about what people in these positions say about people whose art does not need academic subsidy.

I did not see any such statements here - one wonders why you spontaneously make such a complaint.

[ginnboonmiller]

Y'all are silly. Most academic composers I know are too busy surviving in the academy and finding time and opportunities (and money) to compose to be concerned with John Williams' existence.

[ShoelessWes]

Y'all are silly. Most academic composers I know are too busy surviving in the academy and finding time and opportunities (and money) to compose to be concerned with John Williams' existence.

You sure about that one? Of the 4 Universities I've studied music with (2 with notable composers in that crowd)... 5 composers affiliated with those Universities have openly bashed Mr. Williams. One to the point that we spent an entire form/analysis class going over motifs he had stolen and associating the other works to his current ones. I also spent some time with a wind band legend (RIP), and several times he cracked jokes about Williams.

[Trevor Bjorklund]

There seem to be some serious misunderstandings going on here.

1) The VAST majority of composers who are employed by universities are not paid to compose - they are paid to teach music theory, composition, orchestration, possibly some gen-ed classes, and often conduct an ensemble of some kind or organize the goings-on of concert series. I know of only a handful of composers who have been hired by universities (and generally private ones!) who were brought on board solely to compose big works and thus bring more glory to the institution.

2) The age of academics in ivory towers, casting their long shadows with pontifications about "what is good" and "what is not" is over. Milton Babbit, Charles Wuorinen, and Pierre Boulez haven't made waves in the critical world for years. But... that doesn't mean that intelligent critics aren't still necessary. I don't know much about wine other than I know what I like and what I don't. If I don't like a particularly fine bottle of wine (that people who know wine think is really great) I don't say "this wine sucks" because I know my own limitations. I say, "I don't like this wine." There is a big difference. Most lay-listeners have not taken the time to learn what quality in music means. They only know if they like the taste or not (at first sip) and are unlikely to revisit the bottle once their initial impressions are made. The age of the internet has begun a great equalization in critical response. Sure, Alex Ross's voice still carries a lot of weight but only with the people who read him. Having 25,000 "likes" on Facebook means that there are a bunch of people out there who like what they like for their own reasons... the YouTube phenomenon is making dedicated music critique hard to find. But money talks and if a song sells 1 million copies, an awful lot of people will think it means it must be good.

3) "Difficult to play" does not equal "good music," any more than does "easy to play." The sad truth is that many composers who write for wind ensembles are motivated by the opportunity for performances more than quality projects. Most wind ensemble music is written for non-professional performers. Marching or symphonic bands, be they elementary school, university, or community, are mostly populated by people who can play instruments but will never go on to master the art. It stands to reason that if a composer needs a certain level of musicianship to achieve a successful piece, he won't write for a high school marching band! One more point to remember here is that a bad performance can make a good piece into crap. Ever hear Tchaikovsky's violin concerto performed by a high school orchestra?

4) The lack of criticism of mediocre works inside of particular institutions is largely irrelevant in the larger scale of things - consider how many more times a crappy piece will get played after it turns out to be crappy? A composer who puts in real work to a piece always hopes for multiple performances and, the holy grail: inclusion in the canon.

5) Why do people hate John Williams? There is certainly an envious streak - everyone wants to be praised on the highest level for his work. But so many of Williams' critics fail to realize that he performs a VERY different job than a normal composer... he is really a sound-designer. His is not a world of form and structural coherence, it is a world of inter-textuality and post-modernism. He gets to write big, beautiful, easily memorable themes to be used at certain climactic points in big films. But can you seriously remember even 5 continuous minutes of the Star Wars or Indiana Jones music? I can't and I've seen them a hundred times. That is not the same as constructing a piece that must stand on its own, the only elements helping it be successful being a good hall, good players, and an attentive audience. I will go out on a limb and suggest that real artists appreciate what John Williams does and don't begrudge him his money or his fame. But he's not a concert composer, he's a film composer, who has his own team of orchestrators and arrangers! That doesn't mean he's not a composer, just a different kind. People seem to tend towards judging everything through whatever lenses they are personally wearing. John Williams cannot be compared to a Beethoven or a Howard Hanson - he must be compared to Hans Zimmer or Bernard Hermann or Jerry Goldsmith.

I suspect that some of the comments on this thread are due to personal experiences with individuals. Which is unfortunate. But straw men do not a good argument make.

[ginnboonmiller]

Y'all are silly. Most academic composers I know are too busy surviving in the academy and finding time and opportunities (and money) to compose to be concerned with John Williams' existence.

You sure about that one? Of the 4 Universities I've studied music with (2 with notable composers in that crowd)... 5 composers affiliated with those Universities have openly bashed Mr. Williams. One to the point that we spent an entire form/analysis class going over motifs he had stolen and associating the other works to his current ones. I also spent some time with a wind band legend (RIP), and several times he cracked jokes about Williams.

I'm sure about that one. Sounds like we hang in different crowds. Probably by choice.

Also, and this is my main point and should NEVER BE FORGOTTEN - John Williams' music sucks. It's bad. It's a drag. You should trash his music because his music is trashy. I don't think disliking bad music is necessarily motivated by envy. There's this guy who plays folk songs on the G train in Brooklyn. He's awful. He sucks. His music is terrible, as is his voice, and I would bash his music ALL DAY if you had heard it and knew what I was talking about. I make a lot more money than he does. I wouldn't trade places with him for all the world. I feel the same way about John Williams, because his music is garbage.

If someone is trashing John Williams' awful music out of envy, I would surely think that the trasher is an asshole. It can happen. Assholes come in all shapes and sizes. I haven't met a lot of film composers, but I bet at least several of them are assholes. If the digression that this thread has taken is one to take a stance against assholes, then I'm with you all - down with assholes! If it's to paint hard working composers as talentless hacks who suck off the government and whine about rich people, well, I still maintain a strong anti-asshole stance.

[pgym]

Remember back in the 80s when the writers of the 'Ghostbusters' theme sued Huey Lewis for his song 'I Want a New Drug', claiming it ripped them off? It made the news and for a while there was quite a focus on originality in songwriting.

Actually, Lewis sued the composer of the Ghostbusters theme (Ray Parker, Jr.) for plagiarizing "I Want a New Drug"; Parker's suit against Lewis was for breaching the confidentiality agreement over the settlement of Lewis' suit.

[pgym]

Okay this going a bit off topic, but it somehow relates to giving proper credit to a proper people. What "academic" composers, from what I've been told, don't like about some film composers is that there are a quite huge number of ghost writers involved. Sometimes with a credit, sometimes not.

When academics--composers and otherwise--stop appropriating their students work and publishing it as their own, and stop padding their CVs by allowing themselves to be listed as co-authors of research in which they've had no direct involvement, they can complain about the practice of ghostwriting in other industries/professions. Until then, they need to STFU.

[ginnboonmiller]

Yes, well, I've noticed that many gun owners are anti-semitic, too. But I wouldn't go insinuating anything about other gun owners because of that.


However, I am glad to see that bloke is willing to join me in my crusade against talentless assholes.


(calling that dreck well constructed didn't make it interesting to me. and anyway nothing anyone can say will ever make up for that awful, awful tuba concerto.)

[hup_d_dup]

I will go out on a limb and suggest that real artists appreciate what John Williams does and don't begrudge him his money or his fame. But he's not a concert composer, he's a film composer, who has his own team of orchestrators and arrangers! That doesn't mean he's not a composer, just a different kind.

Very well put. Although I'm not a fan of Williams I am a deep admirer of the music of Bernard Herrmann. Yet, even his compositions never seem to work as a whole; they are brilliant interludes that can only fully be appreciated in their cinematic context. Herrmann did not have success with his stand-alone pieces. Nevertheless, he is unsurpassed as a film composer.

As a side note, Herrmann too was accused of copying, as well as a lack of originality. But his conception of music as an integral part of psychological character development was, I believe, highly original and to this day, unsurpassed.

Hup.

[tuneitup]

Well, this thread is going in a several different direction now... As for film composers ripping off composers of the past or not sounding original, sometimes it is not all their fault. After the editing is done, often they use placement music before the original score is done. And the placement music is often well known classical music. The directors hear them, and sometime insist the original score to sound just like the placement music. In extreme cases, the director may actually replace the original score with the placement music, which happened with 2001: Space Odyssey.