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.

<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.

[Rick Denney]

[in honest response to my question of whether he was judging Williams based on his own taste] Yes, as far as I'm concerned. I think that's true for all of us.

This is the nut of the issue, I think, and it comes up in a range of other art discussions.

It is quite common for non-intelligentsia to complain about the art of the intelligentsia, but without any understanding of what makes the art worthy in the first place beyond what they like.

I would expect an academic in the arts to be concerned about what makes art worthy, so as to construct theoretical models of same for further study. That makes it possible to contextualize art so that others can learn its value and begin to appreciate it. That's what academics do, it seems to me--put knowledge in context to make advancement possible. I would expect a mere practitioner not to construct models, but to exemplify the principles meaningful to that artist. They would leave it to others to construct the model of their work, if it's worth the effort. They probably don't care about it much. Trying to create art on the basis of a model is challenging, and trying to criticize art without those models is fruitless.

I suspect that much of the complaining about mere practitioners by those who have deeply thought through some of those models is that they become committed to the models in ways the practitioner does not care about. For those critical thinkers, that robs the result of its value. But I would still expect the critical thinker to be able to describe why the art doesn't fit the model, and why the model is valid even when widely appreciated art doesn't fit it.

And it has been shown in the theory of criticism in other arts that what we consider worthy in art is built on the sum of our experience with art. So, worthiness in art moves with the times, building on what went before. Many contemporary forms of art can only be appreciated after building up to it by learning to appreciate prior forms. Those who have studied those prior forms sufficiently to build that appreciation may look down their nose at those who don't care to learn to appreciate contemporary stuff, of course. And academics are professional studiers, so they are most likely to have trod that path. But part of being an academic is contextualizing that contemporary stuff so that it can be understood as a step in a series, rather than being "good" versus "bad". And when art form progresses in that fashion, as it must because appreciation is built in layers on appreciation for prior forms, the notion that someone's musical techniques (as opposed to their tangible compositions) could be stolen becomes a little hard to support. It may be re-appropriated and given a new context that is separately meaningful.

I fear that in efforts to validate the latest contemporary work, we feel compelled to lose our appreciation for music that does not explore that limit. We become committed to the notion that art is and must be revolutionary. Practitioners are almost required to hold that notion--it's what drives them to innovate. But academics should see things a little more broadly, it seems to me. When academics practice, they have to overcome their models so that what they are expressing is not mere theory.

Maybe a different art form will help illustrate my point without further goring any local oxen.

What about a painter who paints in the Impressionistic style? That style is over a century old at this point. It was itself a reaction to Romantic representation. Modern art was the revolution that overcame Impressionism. And Post-Modern art has supplanted Modern art. Even "Po-Mo" art is now half a century old. It is quite common for a person who appreciates Mark Rothko, or Jasper Johns, or Barnett Newman, or even Jackson Pollack to disregard artists like Andrew Wyeth. And given that it takes quite a lot of study to appreciate those post-modernists, those who have that appreciation are often academics. And I've heard them say all the same things about Wyeth that I have seen you write about Williams. For them, art must have a certain kind of metaphysical, psychological, nihilistically emotional, or political relevance that they see lacking in Wyeth's work. Those features are now part of their model of what makes art worthy, and they judge art on the basis of those features. That's what academics are paid to do: Give us ways to contextualize art. That's what makes it possible to develop appreciation for art beyond one's current level of development. It would be good if they could do so without negatively judging art that was made according to a different, even if they consider it out-dated, model of worthiness.

So, which do you like more of the two attached images, both painted in the same year, by artists of similar age who came to their artistic maturity at about the same time, and who lived within 200 miles of each other? Which of these painting is more worthy? Does either one rip off prior forms or art?


Christina's World Andrew Wyeth, 1948.

Onement 1 Barnett Newman, 1948.

Rick "who sees art at multi-streamed and evolutionary, which makes 'ripping off' a required feature of advancement, even by those who think they are starting over from scratch" Denney

[ginnboonmiller]

Rick, this is good stuff you're writing about. I don't have nearly enough time to respond in kind today, but I just might take a stab at it tonight.

All of my trolling aside, I take issue with your basic approach to aesthetics. It's too (for lack of time to search for the right word) Hegelian. It's true that current societal and cultural context comes loaded with its own history, but audiences didn't live through that history. We only live among its consequences. So it's not about understanding other ways to make art in order to understand how someone makes art today. It's about understanding what we're all reacting to while we're making what we're making.

I'll make sense out of that assertion later today, since I have so much to do right now. But for now I want to point out something I read once. The free jazz guitar great Sonny Sharrock did an interview for a guitar magazine (I'll have to find that later, too), and every time the interviewer asked him a question about influences, the past, music theory, a general approach, he kept responding "I don't know. I don't have time to think about that. I'm too busy making the music."

For me, this discussion hasn't been about the merits of weird music vs. pretty music, or of "needing to sound contemporary" (and I don't sound contemporary, by the way, I sound like 1972 Miles Davis down two octaves most of the time. Skrillex sounds contemporary). I really dislike John Williams' music. His themes aren't just derivative, they bore me. And he doesn't develop them. And, given the chance to work with musical form instead of dramatic form, he really lets down there, too (the awful, awful tuba concerto). He could be doing it in a cooperative effort with Nico Muhly, Burzum and Lady Gaga and I'd still have complaints about his music (although...).

Crap, I'm late.

[sloan]

Art = Craft + Choice

When you criticize Art, try to make it clear (at least to yourself) whether you are criticizing the underlying craft...or the choices made.

Or...sometimes the criticism is that there *is* no craft...

And...sometimes the criticism is that there is no *choice*...

But, often the criticism is simply a statement that the critic disagrees with the choices, or confuses
technical "deficiencies" made by choice with those that are evidence of a lack of craft.

And, often the "artist" tries to hide his lack of craft by claiming it was a choice. Your 5yo's squiggles
might look like Miro - but that doesn't make them "art" (not does it devalue the Miro).

It's less common for "artists" to try to hide a lack of "choice" - most pure craftsmen are aware of, and honest about, what they are doing. Perhaps art forgers come closest to this. Some folk can flawlessly reproduce another's work of art - but only after the fact.

[ginnboonmiller]

...with NEARLY EVERY SINGLE POST going out of its way to mention the work of John Williams...



bloke "...how about a youtube video or linked audio of something that you consider your crowning compositional achievement...?? Show us what 'good' REALLY is."

You'll hate it. And I don't care.

This thread became about Williams about 3 posts in.

[ginnboonmiller]

oh. I'm not sophisticated or enlightened enough to like it.

Not that. It's that you have crappy taste in music.

[ginnboonmiller]

As current-and-former state composition instructors (who offer themselves as above-the-fray composers of sophisticated, cutting-edge, to-be-appreciated-by-future-generations music) were (though their own educational backgrounds leading up to their all-insightful positions) guided through the works of Bach, Brahms, and Beethoven...

...could many of these (completely understanding the characteristic compositional techniques of B, B, and B far better than B, B, and B, because B, B, and B had to come up with these techniques "on the fly" and - obviously - did not have the advantage of studying their own techniques prior to inventing them) professor/composers create a B, B, or B style composition equal-to or superior-to the original composers' works? Could many of these professor composers compose (given six to eight weeks) blockbuster movie scores "in the style of" John Williams (as they - via analysis - completely understand just what makes Williams music is so "bad") that would meet with equally broad "pedestrian" appeal to that of Williams' scores (as, surely, if they are capable of intentionally composing music that currently does *not* find broad appeal, they are also capable of creating compositions which *do* find broad appeal)...??

' how about a hit tune...(any pop genre) ?? That should be easy, right? ...and (even if completely distasteful...if not disgusting) why not do it once or twice "just for the funding" it would supply to pursue loftier goals (again, for the appreciation of those who will come later) ?

What the hell are you even talking about?

[ginnboonmiller]

I'm not sophisticated or enlightened enough to like it.

[ginnboonmiller]

Come on... Let's hear a couple of them... Don't be so shy...

http://www.mediafire.com

Now I feel like less of a creative musician because the bad man wants me to whip my musical dick out.

[Rick Denney]

Art = Craft + Choice

When you criticize Art, try to make it clear (at least to yourself) whether you are criticizing the underlying craft...or the choices made.

Or...sometimes the criticism is that there *is* no craft...

And...sometimes the criticism is that there is no *choice*...

But, often the criticism is simply a statement that the critic disagrees with the choices, or confuses
technical "deficiencies" made by choice with those that are evidence of a lack of craft.

And, often the "artist" tries to hide his lack of craft by claiming it was a choice. Your 5yo's squiggles
might look like Miro - but that doesn't make them "art" (not does it devalue the Miro).

It's less common for "artists" to try to hide a lack of "choice" - most pure craftsmen are aware of, and honest about, what they are doing. Perhaps art forgers come closest to this. Some folk can flawlessly reproduce another's work of art - but only after the fact.

This, by the way, is an example of contextualizing knowledge so that people can take a next step in the discussion. This is what I expect good academics to be able to do.

Of course, all my discussion was on the choice side of Dr. Sloan's equation. I'm assuming that craft is adequate to convey the choices made in all cases, because it seems to me that the complaints have been about choices, going right back to the original post. The whole field of art criticism is based on understanding what are the choices being made, what effects they have, and why those choices have the effects they do.

A forger seeks to replicate, but that is not the same thing as re-appropriating material from prior art forms, of course. It does matter, though, that what the borrower does with that borrowed material reflects valid choices. An example of an invalid choice is that the composer desires to trade on the popularity of the composer from whom he borrowed. An example of a valid choice is that the borrower doesn't think the composer from whom he borrowed said all there was to say about the borrowed material, or that it has applicability unknown to the original composer that is meaningful to contemporary audiences.

(Every new generation names their generation using adjectives designed to convey that they are being innovative. Thus, modern, post-modern, avant-garde, contemporary, etc. In the art world, "contemporary" is one of the few that has not become the label of a period. There is nothing contemporary about Modernism, which is now a century old, for example. I'm using "contemporary" to mean "current" in an attempt not to use a term that has already been associated with a particular period or school. Both Wyeth's and Newman's work were contemporary in 1948, but only one was "post-modern.")

It's not about Williams, by the way. It's about whether art that some people think is derivative is therefore unworthy, and that is precisely the subject of the thread. Is being derivative the same thing as ripping off? Williams was an example of an enormously popular composer whose work is accused of being derivative. That led to a discussion of whether being derivative was bad or even uncommon, an alternate discussion of whether being commercially popular invalidated its worthiness, or whether the non-commercial viability of his main detractors reveals an unstated bias. Whether one likes Williams's work should not enter into that discussion, but it has colored it deeply. We should be able to separate these issues and deal with them independently. To me, not doing so is a failure of proper criticism, and it impedes rather than promotes understanding. And failing to do so means the discussion becomes a flame war. Academics should know better.

Rick "who has been chasing this demon for many decades since his architecture professor explained a mediocre grade with 'it was fine until the end, when I just couldn't relate to it, man'" Denney