O Magnum Mysterium

[Eleran]

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.

I disagree with this somewhat. Once an idea has been released into the world, whether it is a piece of written, musical, or visual art, or a an idea how to build something, or an abstract theory ... I feel that the originator has, voluntarily, relinquished at least some small portion of his control of that idea. Like I joked above, can a composer prohibit me from whistling his tune? That may seen an absurd extension of the concept, but how is that really any different than my five piece jazz band playing the piece in a coffee shop (for free)? Part of the control, or possession, automatically becomes public the minute it's whispered beyond the confines of the artist's own head. Similar to a public official or celebrity - they can make sure no one is profiting from the use of their name and image, but they cannot prevent the rest of the world from talking about them, naming them, or posting pictures of them. In essences, they have lost the 100% ownership of their name and image by willfully becoming public figures. And how many new inventions are built on the shoulders of prior inventions? Ideas, and art, evolve as they are processed through more and more minds, and I think that's a good thing.

So while I can appreciate an artist or publisher being compensated when you use their work for financial gain, I personally have never been in favor of extending that protection to prohibit non-financial users from adopting/performing a work.

Edited January 8, 2015 by Eleran

[HornTeacher]

I disagree with this somewhat. Once an idea has been released into the world, whether it is a piece of written, musical, or visual art, or a an idea how to build something, or an abstract theory ... I feel that the originator has, voluntarily, relinquished at least some small portion of his control of that idea. Like I joked above, can a composer prohibit me from whistling his tune? That may seen an absurd extension of the concept, but how is that really any different than my five piece jazz band playing the piece in a coffee shop (for free)? Part of the control, or possession, automatically becomes public the minute it's whispered beyond the confines of the artist's own head. Similar to a public official or celebrity - they can make sure no one is profiting from the use of their name and image, but they cannot prevent the rest of the world from talking about them, naming them, or posting pictures of them. In essences, they have lost the 100% ownership of their name and image by willfully becoming public figures. And how many new inventions are built on the shoulders of prior inventions? Ideas, and art, evolve as they are processed through more and more minds, and I think that's a good thing.

So while I can appreciate an artist or publisher being compensated when you use their work for financial gain, I personally have never been in favor of extending that protection to prohibit non-financial users from adopting/performing a work.

A very thoughtful and well-stated post, Eleran. And your viewpoint certainly has a LOT of merit. I suppose what I initially posted was a reaction against what appeared to be an attitude of "entitlement" by some; i.e,, that if a composer doesn't wish for his or her work to be adapted or arranged for D&BC (or any other style or genre for that matter), then we, as a general public, are "entitled" to an explanation as to why the composer is restricting such usage. I will stand up for my original wording and restate that I don't feel that we are "entitled" to an explanation. If that is how the original composer feels (as the "owner" of the work of art), then he or she should not feel compelled to give a reason why "we" can't do whatever we wish to "his or her" piece. I don't think Beethoven would have any problem with you, me, or the Man in the Moon whistling any specific Beethovian melody to ourselves as we leave the concert hall. However, I am not so sure that he would be entirely thrilled if I were to arrange his Seventh Symphony for Bagpipe, Kazoo, and NoseFlute ensemble. Maybe a rather lousy example on my part, I certainly admit. Just making a point.

Edited January 8, 2015 by HornTeacher