TubeNet

Hi guys,

TubeNetters always have a lot of intellectual/interesting opinions, and I was wondering what do you guys think of this. Basically, the article is saying that the orchestra piece by a grammy winning composer sounds just like a piece by another composer. You can compare the two pieces at the bottom of the page.

http://conductingmasterclass.wordpress. ... -sidereus/" target="_blank

Thanks for the links, interesting reading and listening.
I think that the two pieces are definitely too close for comfort- very similar.

This has produced some interesting conversations around town (I live in Eugene; missed the performance due to a family commitment)...I will add new developments as they come in.

I've played with Brian McWhorter in a festival orchestra the last two summers. He's a man of utmost integrity. If he says the new piece is a copy of the other, you can bet your last dollar on that.

KiltieTuba wrote:And? Doesn't everyone rip off each other? Doesn't a lot of what John Williams has written sound like stuff from other composers?

Dvorak/Jaws?

Well, if you listen to it, you might see that this is more than just resembling another piece. It is more like a re-orchestration, and it lasts several minutes of the piece. I'd say it is a lot more than what I notice from John Williams.

bloke wrote:government composers

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


I haven't heard the two pieces yet, and looking at the page of the score in that blog post, I'm not sure I'm interested, but appropriation and theft are two different things, and it can be really, really tough to judge the difference sometimes. From what I gather, this could be either theft or the creative appropriation of the first composer's material, and since the guy credits the first composer for generating the melody, I'm inclined to lean towards the latter. That's without judging the quality of the guy's work. It can be boringly uncreative and derivative without being straight up theft, no problem. The same way that Kenny G's music being awful doesn't keep it from being jazz.


John William's music is terrible. So is the music of a lot of student composers I hear, who are paying a lot of money for the opportunity to make terrible music. How much he makes doesn't bother me one whit. The fact that his music is abominable and ubiquitous bothers me a lot.

bloke wrote:I didn't say that I "like" John Williams' music. I own no John Williams music recordings. The only time I ever listen to it is when I'm paid to play it.

I DID, though, say this:

I find Williams' music to be more self-identifiable (tonally/melodically) than that composed by Bruckner.

bloke "which is the topic of the thread"

I was pretty clearly remarking about the "envy" spiel in your sig, yeah? If you can be 80/20 on topic, so can I.

Of COURSE I want John Williams' money. I also think his music is terrible. That isn't envy, though. It's a combination of greed and good taste.

bloke wrote:

KiltieTuba wrote:And? Doesn't everyone rip off each other? Doesn't a lot of what John Williams has written sound like stuff from other composers?

I find Williams' music to be more self-identifiable (tonally/melodically) than that composed by Bruckner.

bloke "who senses quite a bit of envy expressed by government composers regarding Williams' freelance success and celebrity"

I'm there. I've heard that his music sounded like Dvorak, but also Holst and several other composers.

There has never been a composer that didn't sound like some other composer for at least some of their work. That's the reason we can generally group music into historical categories. Can all of us really tell the difference between Mozart and Haydn, if we've never heard either work before?

Rick "not doubting that Williams will figure prominently in the musical history of this period, after the academic complaints about it have faded into obscurity" Denney

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.

ginnboonmiller wrote:

bloke wrote: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

Tom wrote: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.

Ultimately, it sounds like the main issue is between W-B and G, then. There's a lot that we don't know about what this piece, and W-B's original, actually are. Which is to say, did W-B know about the score and give approval (explicit or tacit)? Did they both write both works together, and they're just alternating credit (kind of the opposite of the "Lennon-McCarthy" songwriting credit thing). And if W-B isn't going to sue, then is it really a big deal?

As far as the orchestra getting their money's worth, I'd say they got a bargain. They (or someone) paid for a new orchestral work from a semi-known composer that was good enough to program. They got that. The controversy and resultant publicity seem like a big bonus for them.

Rick Denney wrote:

ginnboonmiller wrote:

bloke wrote: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.

ginnboonmiller wrote: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

Rick Denney wrote:

ginnboonmiller wrote: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

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.

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.

Trevor Bjorklund wrote: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

ginnboonmiller wrote:

Rick Denney wrote: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

Rick Denney wrote:

ginnboonmiller wrote:

Rick Denney wrote: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.)