Ripping off?

[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.

[Rick Denney]

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

[ginnboonmiller]

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.

[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.

[bloke]

' still sounds like a bit of success/recognition envy to me. Otherwise, why bite so hard on such an obvious troll ?

Further, I would offer </troll> that if some early 20th Century composer (requirement: now dead ) had written this, it would (particularly if there were a libretto attached to it) be universally considered as "genius"...but no dead early 20th Century composer wrote this...John Williams wrote this:

( ref. 0:00 - 4:30)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n49ElyWbmFE
...and why are these world-class musicians beaming with smiles after being forced to play "crap" ?

Further, I just don't believe that most government composers understand what is involved in composing a movie score, and neither do I believe that they understand the incredible constraints involved...

...and why do government composers (et al) bend over backwards to kick Williams in the shins but never utter a word about the reams of obvious crap that is rolled out of the wind-band composition mills?

bloke "a troll-er, who (again) neither owns nor listens to John Williams music, and - as does Mr. Denney - recognizes state universities' composition professors as government composers"

[knuxie]

Sounds like another reason to cut funding to the arts, eh?

[bloke]

Sounds like another reason to cut funding to the arts, eh?

Nearly teetering off into TubeNet's forbidden "p" black hole, I'm no more an advocate of uninterested citizens being forced to subsidize this realm than I am in favor of uninterested citizens being forced to pay for the construction of half-billion-dollar sports arenas in order to subsidize professional sports corporations.

bloke "why not subsidize model train hobbyists?"

[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.

[knuxie]

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.

The music lasts longer and reaches more people.

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.

Whether it's pop music or classical, IMHO ripping off another's work does nothing but jade the consumer to our genre.