O Magnum Mysterium

[2muchcoffeeman]

Unfortunately, Lauridsen does not allow his music to be arranged for the outdoor activity.

I'd be interested to hear composers explain their thinking about this. Not to prosecute Lauridsen about it; it's his composition, and he can do what he likes with it. Yet he (and others) are artists, creators. Presumably, they write music so as to set it loose in the world, not keep it under wraps. I'd be interested to hear artists explain why they would want to put limits on how their art is presented. For example, is Lauridsen's refusal to permit derivative arrangements grounded in a desire to preserve copyright, prevent derivatives from establishing their own, separate, revenue claims, and preserve maximum revenue potential for himself? Or does it have nothing to do with money and everything to do with keeping the composition pure? What do artists find valuable in the idea of purity? What do they find unsatisfactory about the idea of derivatives? Specifically, I'd be fascinated to hear Lauridsen or other like-minded composers explain why they find the idea of an arrangement of their work for marching ensemble offensive to their artistic intent. My work is best when performed in its original setting because ___________, and it would be worse as a drum-corps composition because ________________________. I'd be fascinated to hear artists fill in those blanks.

[84BDsop]

I'd be interested to hear composers explain their thinking about this. Not to prosecute Lauridsen about it; it's his composition, and he can do what he likes with it. Yet he (and others) are artists, creators. Presumably, they write music so as to set it loose in the world, not keep it under wraps. I'd be interested to hear artists explain why they would want to put limits on how their art is presented. For example, is Lauridsen's refusal to permit derivative arrangements grounded in a desire to preserve copyright, prevent derivatives from establishing their own, separate, revenue claims, and preserve maximum revenue potential for himself? Or does it have nothing to do with money and everything to do with keeping the composition pure? What do artists find valuable in the idea of purity? What do they find unsatisfactory about the idea of derivatives? Specifically, I'd be fascinated to hear Lauridsen or other like-minded composers explain why they find the idea of an arrangement of their work for marching ensemble offensive to their artistic intent. My work is best when performed in its original setting because ___________, and it would be worse as a drum-corps composition because ________________________. I'd be fascinated to hear artists fill in those blanks.

As had been stated before, in Lauridsen's case, i's because the work has deep personal meaning for him...Holsinger has at leas one compositionw oith the same restriction and for the same reason.

Other compusers simply don't want some works performed outside the type of group they were originally made for...I think it was 89 where Cavies had to make a LOT of changes to one of theie John Rutter pieces because of that. Some composers get reeeeally picky about their work.

Others are like "You want to do MY stuff? Sure...go for it!"

I'm like that. If I ever composed a work and found a drum corps wanted to arrange it, my only price would be a clopy of the score and a video of what they felt was their best performance...and maybe a tour schedule is case they came close enough to me.

Edited January 7, 2015 by 84BDsop

[Eleran]

The Scene: backstage, after the world premiere of a new concert piece by Famous Composer

Eager Fan: "I just loved the new piece! I can't stop humming that incredible melody to myself!"

Famous Composer: "Expect a cease and desist letter from my lawyer. I did not compose it to be hummed by a soloist!!!"

[perc2100]

I'd be interested to hear composers explain their thinking about this. Not to prosecute Lauridsen about it; it's his composition, and he can do what he likes with it. Yet he (and others) are artists, creators. Presumably, they write music so as to set it loose in the world, not keep it under wraps. I'd be interested to hear artists explain why they would want to put limits on how their art is presented. For example, is Lauridsen's refusal to permit derivative arrangements grounded in a desire to preserve copyright, prevent derivatives from establishing their own, separate, revenue claims, and preserve maximum revenue potential for himself? Or does it have nothing to do with money and everything to do with keeping the composition pure? What do artists find valuable in the idea of purity? What do they find unsatisfactory about the idea of derivatives? Specifically, I'd be fascinated to hear Lauridsen or other like-minded composers explain why they find the idea of an arrangement of their work for marching ensemble offensive to their artistic intent. My work is best when performed in its original setting because ___________, and it would be worse as a drum-corps composition because ________________________. I'd be fascinated to hear artists fill in those blanks.

I've had similar conversations with composers at NAMM or Mid-west Band/Orchestra Clinic. The general theme was either:

1) that piece has a very special meaning to me, and I want it to be performed exactly how I composed it, no exceptions. 2nd Movement of David Holsinger's "Easter Symphony," or "When David Heard" by Whitacre.

2) I don't want ANYONE "butchering" my piece, mangling my intent with arrangements for a different medium. Maslanka is generally like this, but he would take commissions or do arrangements of his music instead.

3) don't want their music arranged/performed in that medium at all. Green Day, several rock & pop bands are that way

4) I have specific publishing arrangements where arrangements of my music are sold and nothing else is generally allowable other than pieces arranged and on the market already. John Williams is generally this way

Sometimes it does have to do with money, where the rights' holders want so much it's just automatically assumed a piece is unobtainable. If we're talking about specific artists/composers, they are generally pretty open and honest about what they like/dislike.

[ranintothedoor]

1)... I want it to be performed exactly how I composed it, no exceptions. ... "When David Heard" by Whitacre.

I wouldn't want "When David Heard" to be performed by anything other than a choir. The writing is a perfect vocal representation of an emotional sob... it's uncanny when done well.

[2muchcoffeeman]

As had been stated before, in Lauridsen's case, i's because the work has deep personal meaning for him...Holsinger has at leas one compositionw oith the same restriction and for the same reason.

Other compusers simply don't want some works performed outside the type of group they were originally made for...I think it was 89 where Cavies had to make a LOT of changes to one of theie John Rutter pieces because of that. Some composers get reeeeally picky about their work.

Yeah, I know it was stated before. I understand that Lauridsen's work has deep meaning to him. And that others are really picky.

My question remains: Why? Why does "deep personal meaning" = "don't touch my music"? Is it not possible for a composer to have a deep personal connection to her creation, yet allow the world to play with it?

After all, Lauridsen published his work. If it was truly personal, if it was meant to be something only for himself, he never would have published it. At some level, he was willing to share his creation with the world. But at another level, he was not. It's the rationale that draws a line between the two levels that fascinates me.

Understand: I support copyright. The concept of intellectual property is necessary to give creators an economic foothold. I'm not arguing Lauridsen made a bad decision. His music is his property. I'm not here to say any composer is right or wrong about the decisions they make about their creations.

My fascination is with why artists have made the decisions they have about their property. And my interest is deeper than "it has deep personal meaning." That much is obvious. What isn't obvious, and what I find interesting, is why an artist could not bear to hear his composition bended and shaped into new forms. One person might say to the artist: Your music is so beautiful and I think it could reach entire new audiences if arranged in a new way. What goes through the mind of the artist at a moment like that? What rationale would he or she form to counter that argument?

Edited January 7, 2015 by 2muchcoffeeman

[ShortAndFast]

Yeah, I know it was stated before. I understand that Lauridsen's work has deep meaning to him. And that others are really picky.

My question remains: Why? Why does "deep personal meaning" = "don't touch my music"? Is it not possible for a composer to have a deep personal connection to her creation, yet allow the world to play with it?

After all, Lauridsen published his work. If it was truly personal, if it was meant to be something only for himself, he never would have published it. At some level, he was willing to share his creation with the world. But at another level, he was not. It's the rationale that draws a line between the two levels that fascinates me.

Understand: I support copyright. The concept of intellectual property is necessary to give creators an economic foothold. I'm not arguing Lauridsen made a bad decision. His music is his property. I'm not here to say any composer is right or wrong about the decisions they make about their creations.

My fascination is with why artists have made the decisions they have about their property. And my interest is deeper than "it has deep personal meaning." That much is obvious. What isn't obvious, and what I find interesting, is why an artist could not bear to hear his composition bended and shaped into new forms. One person might say to the artist: Your music is so beautiful and I think it could reach entire new audiences if arranged in a new way. What goes through the mind of the artist at a moment like that? What rationale would he or she form to counter that argument?

Sure - many composers are perfectly willing to allow their music to be used in marching shows, be re-arranged, whatever. Look at, for example, Vienna Teng's public statements about the Bluecoats' use of her piece last summer. But Laurisden isn't willing for that particular piece.

I'm not sure you can get any clear answer beyond that some composers are sometimes are going to choose to be very restrictive about what is done with some of their works.

[2muchcoffeeman]

I'm not sure you can get any clear answer beyond that some composers are sometimes are going to choose to be very restrictive about what is done with some of their works.

I suspect you're right. I wonder, though, if anyone has asked Lauridsen what the nature of his personal connection to OMM is? Does he believe a different arrangement would offend his memory of his brother? If that's the case, what would he say to the suggestion that new arrangements might connect more people to the essence of his brother?

I wonder if anyone's ever asked him that, and what is answer would be. When a composer keeps a tight fist on a composition, what values is he trying to protect? The answer would speak to the meaning of music, which is a deep and enriching subject to explore.

[HornTeacher]

I'm going to play devil's advocate for just one second. I am not in any way attempting to be contentious, but merely expressing an alternate point of view to the discussion.

Any composition belongs to one person and one person only -- the composer. It is his (or hers) to do with it whatever it is that he or she desires. Speaking only for myself, I don't need an explanation (i.e., reason, excuse, etc.) as to why he or she does not desire for it to exist in any other form than the one in which he or she composed it. I don't expect an explanation, nor am I entitled to one. And just because I (or we as a general public) pay for live performances or recordings of a composer's work(s), that does not entitle us a say in how that work should be subsequently treated or rendered. Yes, we all may wish to have a work performed in a style or genre more to our personal liking -- but that is all to which that we are entitled...a wish. Nothing more.

Public Domain aside...has anyone thought about whether or not Da Vinci would have appreciated Peter Max's rendition of the "Mona Lisa" using vibrant neon colors in the 1960's? Maybe he, in fact, would have appreciated it. Maybe not. The unfortunate thing is this, however...he was never allowed the chance to comment. And while it was totally legal for Peter Max to use the work for his own expression, that doesn't make it ethically...or artistically...correct.

Edited January 8, 2015 by HornTeacher

[2muchcoffeeman]

I don't expect an explanation, nor am I entitled to one.

Totally agree. I am expressing only that I would be interested to hear such explanations from a composer willing to share them. It is an interesting tension -- the public expression of art vs. the private possession of how it may be expressed. I'm not entitled to know why an artist would share on one hand and be restrictive on the other, but I think it would be an interesting tension to explore.