MoonHill

Just some notes/concerns that occur to me, Sam: 1) Except by linking with a HS, you're in the exact same recruiting pool as the Jr Corps... and no matter where your membership comes from, you're still in the same pond when it comes to equipment, transpo, show scheduling, etc. 2) Except for that trip to Rochester(or rather, Annapolis in 2012)... which if you're not planning on doing anyway, makes this reason even less important, since it's pretty much standard practice for several jr. corps (in So Cal, no less), to not bother with touring nationally. 3)Except, again, for that trip to Annapolis... which, again, if you're not planning on doing at any point, makes not being a regional DCI corps rather silly. And if you do plan on eventually doing DCA nationals, then the "short season" idea goes right out the window, because DCA is already so much later than DCI nationals to begin with. And, 4) Because SoCal Dream has such a huge surplus of age-out-plus people clamoring to get in the door. [/sarcasm] Seriously, though, between Dream and Freelancers Alumni South and the various incarnations of Blue Phoenix, just how many vets/nevermarched old guys do you think there are in Southern California? The recruiting pool has never been huge, especially compared to NorCal. As for DCA west and you marching, I'm on-board with both of those ideas, and I wish you great luck in this program. Although I think you're over-estimating just how much marching you're going to be able to do while also being the lead-man on organizing the program. It can be tough for Directors to get on the field, even in small-time senior corps. Just watch out for the adult/minors complications inherent in bringing older people into a group linked so closely to a high-school; the liability issues will have to be watched *very* closely, or you're going to wind up with a minor making googely-eyes at a 30-year-old, and a parental lawsuit, nevermind the potential for minors to get beer, etc. Even going to NorCal for the Renegades shows will be a chaperoning nightmare if you wind up with any sort of age mixture. Being attached to a school adds all sorts of concerns that way, too (have fun with the helicopter parents, for instance, nevermind helicoptering school administrators and board members). And remember, general liability insurance only goes so far.

In a wide variety of ways, this thread delivers on the laughs.

"Will no one rid me of this turbulent poster?!"

You could always join in on the joke, show some humor, and jovially make fun of their alma mater. But I guess being uptight about it works, too.

I'll go along with that, though I warn you, I might not check back on this thread for a few days. Rules about creative endeavors coming in under the deadline that I've got to follow. ;)

There's no point in changing it, though, as it can have no effect on the things it proposes to effect, under the logic of your philosophy. No, I'm sorry, that's not possible. There was a vote at the last bi-annual scotch-drinker's club association, and it was decided that one is not allowed to call it that if one is also going to say things like "there's no such thing as advocating a philosophy". Bloody rules committees.

I was a physics major. The weirder parts of QM are my bread and butter. And no, when we've brought in a concept such as infinity (a term you first used), then memory is not very specific. Because for every possible memory, there will be an infinite number of musical pieces, and an infinite number of librettos and choreographies and stories (all artistic, and thus "always-existent") that will result in that particular memory. If there aren't, then the number of possible things is definitionally limited, and thus not infinite. At which point, you'll need to consult a new dictionary.

Religion tends to lend itself to effecting the lives of the people involved. That's actually most of the point of the vast, overwhelming majority of religions through out history. Whereas your stance seems to have no such aspirations at all, which is fine. I'm a big fan of intellectual masturbation. And as for who cares, well, at the beginning of this thread, you sure as heck seemed to. It was just one page back that you were asserting that heirs had no right to make decisions on an ancestor's copyrights...

Logically, you could write a completely different piece of music and have it set on stage to a completely different show, and it could have the same effect and meaning and even memory. That's what's fun about concepts like "infinite"

So, as I mentioned, why bother to be bothered, at all, by anything that anyone ever does regarding any aspect of copyright law application?

In other words, you do nothing but make yourself feel good. Got it. Your words have no actual bearing on the world or the people in it. There's not a jot of legal or even particularly sensible application to any of them. They're merely intellectual masturbation, carried out in public. That I can respect.

Sure it does. The music is forever, which means every arrangement of it is forever, and every interpretation of it is forever. And since Forever is infinite and Infinity is Infinite(by definition), then there are an infinite number of musical pieces in Forever-existence that would have the exact same meaning and effect to anyone listening as any Bernstein piece has or could. So just grab one of the infinite number of pieces floating out in the aether that aren't one of the ones Bernstein wrote down, and you're golden.

And for that matter, if music is itself a more than physical construction, then logically My Right To Have My Choice is also a more than physical construction and transcends both my death and the rules you might want to put on it, such as "it ends at death"

And yet, you seem to be saying at the same time, it is. Note the rules you keep trying to impose upon it. They're your rules, sure, and different than the rules of, oh, let's say, U.S. copyright law, but they're rules nontheless. Rules come up with by you, and which you find very logical and right, but which, according to your own philosophical stance, the music itself cares not a single blind whit about.

Then there's absolutely no point in grousing, at all, about what the heirs of Bernstein choose to do or not do with the music created by Bernstein and to which they hold the copyright.

Because the composer's wish during his life was not for his music to have such a protection against its use by arrangers. Bernstein left his life's work and benefits to his heirs, however, the right to deny dies with the man who wrote it. And to jump back to my previous comment in answer to yours, The Decision Making Process of guardianship over the products of my life does not end with my life, either. It says so right there in the Bern Convention and U.S. copyright law.

No, because Bernstein understood copyright law, and therefor we can assume that he understood that what he was doing was making them the custodians of the works, and that he trusted their judgement in determining how the work would be used and arranged, and since he wasn't a stupid man, we can be fairly clear that he understood that things might change as time progressed. The right to deny resides entirely and totally with the person who holds the full copyright. If Bernstein had wanted to deny that right to his heirs, he could have very easily stated that explicitly in his will. He did not, the copyright exists as it exists, and you ain't the person who gets to decide otherwise. And, I must note, this is a huge step down from "even the creator does not own a work which touches other people", which I see as a very wise movement on your part. Good show.

Then simply reach unto the aether, seize upon the ever-existent first-cousin of the idea that which lead to Bernstein's ephemeral artistic epiphany, and allow yourself to act as a channel upon which this spiritual essence can compose itself onto a sheet of paper, and stop being so concerned with what the Bernstein estate is doing with the stuff he put down on paper. Since the idea is infinite, and infinity is unlimited, then this should be no trick at all.

Nope. The products of my life don't end with my life, the legacy I leave to my children does not end with my life. Why deny Bernstein the choice to leave the benefits of his life, and the protection of his work, to his heirs? Because it's slightly inconvenient for you?

Oi vey. The following is a prime example of advocating a very specific philosophy: This is a specific philosophical stance. You advocate it via asserting it, and by defending it. Do you understand the concept of being disagreed with? And, once again, I disagree, very definitively. I disagree with the idea that the collection of souls has always existed (which is a matter of spiritual/religious worldview which, thankfully, has no bearing on the way concepts such as ownership are determined in the world), and I disagree with our collective connection with the divine being (another spiritual/religious stance which differs from a wide variety of the world), and I disagree with the concept that heirs have no claim to the rights which their ancestor specifically bequeathed to them. Your spiritual world-view determines your stance on questions of copyright law, but apparently you manage to pick-and-choose the logical implications of your stance in such a way as to avoid saying that Bernstein gets to own his own work, while still satisfying your underlying desire to have free and unfettered access to artistic works that would be public domain under the copyright laws of the mid-1800s. There are plenty of arguments for why copyright should expire at the death of the creator, but basing one on an extremely specific philosophical stance is a new one on me.

And Platonic Ideals are good for nothing more than intellectual masturbation, just like the question of artistic intangibility. 4'33" doesn't just have "multiple measures" of silence; it is silence, structured and ordered just like any piece of music is structured and ordered, even one that called for complete chaos. Cage no more own the rights to silence than Bernstein owns the rights to the C# Major Chord, but both of them(or rather, the people who have the copyrights) own the pieces that the composers composed utilizing those elements. Just like how John Grisham does not own the copyright to the words "The" and "when", but he does own the copyrights to the works he has produced. In the case of the gardener, if he purchased the seed and owns the land he's planting it in, then of course he owns the tree. If the seed comes from another tree he owns, of course he owns it. If someone else paid money for or otherwise legally acquired the seed and owns the land it went into, and merely paid the gardener to plant it as a work-for-hire, then that person owns the tree. Rules of ownership like that are very, very, very well-established, and logical. You might want to go back to a more Lakota-inspired "no owns the land, or anything of it" type of situation, with regards to music and art, at least, but I tell you, it makes it difficult to enforce any laws regarding theft or fair compensation for work. The philosophy you're advocating would make it extremely difficult to earn a living as a person who generates music, either as a fully-original composer or as an arranger for Drum Corps and Marching Bands. Why would anyone ever get paid for putting six months of their time, effort, and industry into putting together a piece, when the people who engaged for that piece could claim, at the end, that the music is touching to them, and music is spiritually transcendent anyways, so the composer doesn't own any aspect of the piece they composed, anyway? The idea that an artist naturally has absolutely no choice in how their art will be used/co-opted/distributed/monetized seems like it would have an incredibly chilling effect on the production of art, in general. Bad call, Ripley. Bad call.

Oh, lordy. If money or economics wasn't an issue at all, I'd probably go nuts and have a truly "any-key" hornline. Bb and C trumpets, maybe some G sops. F mellophones, Bb Baritones, G euphoniums, C contrabases... I have no idea how much trouble we'd end up going through getting everything tuned up, but #### our arrangements would have some really awesome overtones and chord structures... "Nuts" is definitely the word.

Incorrect. The true composer is a person who puts sounds together into music. That's all, nothing else. The Sinfonians seem to understand that. And everyone has the right to own the fruits of their own labor, no matter how many other people consider it great.

That's actually what I'm saying, too.

Fair enough. I honestly don't know where to find the caption scores. I guess the 0.8pt overall improvement from 2007 to 2008 beats out the 1.8pt overall improvement from 2006 to 2007, though. ;)