DVD and Bluray on sale

[Kamarag]

The Sousa band performed transcriptions of Beethoven symphonies. It didn't hurt Beethoven's music or his reputation as a composer. Getting hands-on experience with good music in whatever format is available to music students is far more important than listening to records. Would composers prefer that their music is played and heard less if it can't be performed exactly as written?

Well, to be fair, Beethoven was in no position to mind :)

[cowtown]

A band recorded one of my songs. At first I was excited and flattered but when I heard it, they ruined it. The cool, menacing, sinter tone was lost and it sounded stupid without the proper context. It no longer worked and the lyrics were naked. I never played that song live after hearing their version. To be fair, I had not played for a while anyway but now it’s not even a consideration

so there is that

[N.E. Brigand]

What he's absolutely missing, and what so many in drum corps forget to impress upon composers with this attitude, is that many, MANY (myself included) would have never even known about many pieces of music if it weren't for drum corps arrangements. Don't just about all corps require MM's to listen to source music to learn it in order to make the arrangement a true and honest performance?

I think there are good points on both sides of this argument.

My favorite author, obviously, is J.R.R. Tolkien. From its 1954-55 publication, The Lord of the Rings was a very successful book, so much so that within just a few years, Tolkien regretted not having taken an early retirement package from his teaching duties. But it was only available in hardcover, and Tolkien himself was reluctant to have it published in paperback. He joked in a letter circa 1960 that penguins, puffins, and other "soft-shelled" birds often "fouled their nests" (Penguin and Puffin being the names of prominent paperback imprints). He shared the sense of many highbrow authors that books in paperback were trashier than hardcovers.

Then in 1963, the staff of an American paperback publisher called Ace thought they spotted a loophole, having to do with how many books were imported by Tolkien's British publisher, Allen & Unwin, vs. how many were printed by his American publisher, Houghton Mifflin. It appeared to Ace that by having too many of the former, the publishers had violated U.S. law and thus lost their copyright. So without getting permission or agreeing to pay any royalties, Ace brought out their own paperback. It cost a lot less than the hardcover, and it sold like gangbusters.

Tolkien's publishers were outraged, and felt that they were legally in the right, but it would be a difficult case to win, so they asked Tolkien to update The Lord of the Rings so that, as a "revised edition", it could be copyrighted as a new text. He made a lot of little changes (the tracing of which would vex Tolkien scholars for years), and Houghton Mifflin was able to release their own paperback in 1965. Tolkien also began to reply to all correspondence from his budding American fan base with requests that they repudiate Ace and encourage the Houghton sales. There was enough bad press that Ace ceased publication of LOTR and cut Tolkien a royalty check based on what they had sold--although Ace maintained that this was a good will gesture and not legally required. (The particular copyright issue wasn't decided until the 1990s, in another case, and ultimately it went in Tolkien's favor.) And then the the Houghton paperback sold better still.

So without being nudged into allowing paperback sales--ironically, via copyright infringement!--Tolkien would have lost a vast audience. On the other hand, Tolkien now was so popular, receiving so much mail, and phone calls in the middle of the night (from Americans who didn't think about the time difference), and requests to license his material for other uses, many of which he found inappropriate, that he began to grumble about his "deplorable cultus", and had to get his phone number changed to an unlisted, and ultimately moved to another town with his address known only to a very few people. Remember, he was already quite successful at what he had set out to do. Similarly, for some composers, having their work performed by orchestras and wind ensembles may be the satisfaction of their hearts' desires: they don't or need their music used in other ways.

Among the many commercial inquiries that Tolkien received were requests to adapt the books to film. These dated back to the late 1950s, at which time he and his publisher agreed on a policy: "'Art or Cash': either very profitable terms indeed; or absolute author's veto on objectionable features or alterations." One potential filmmaker provided him with the detailed treatment for an adaptation in 1958. Tolkien tore it to shreds in a long and exacting letter that finds something wrong with nearly every scene. About ten years later, United Artists made a "very profitable" offer, and he accepted it. I have heard that he hoped that the book would prove unfilmable, so that he might have both the money and the pleasure of not seeing his work butchered, but by agreeing to the price, he also agreed to relinquish control over the artistic aspects of the film. (Much later New Line, who had eventually acquired the film's license, tried to weasel out of the financial terms, claiming with typical Hollywood accounting b.s. that the 2001-03 films actually lost money, but after Tolkien's estate sued about ten years ago, a big settlement was reached.)

Peter Jackson's movies, of course, were enormous hits at the box office, and the books, which had continued to sell well for decades and which had enormous popular appeal (winning a couple "best of the century" polls in the late 1990s, before the films appeared), saw a large increase in sales as a result: something like a 1,000% uptick. But a number of Tolkien's most discerning readers, right on up to Tolkien's son, Christopher (whom Tolkien named as his literary executor authorized to edit and publish his unfinished work posthumously), while accepting that the filmmakers were legally within their rights to do anything they liked with the source material, feel that even The Lord of the Rings movies are at best disappointing; as C. Tolkien said in an interview a few years ago: "They eviscerated the book by making it an action movie for young people aged 15 to 25". (And The Hobbit movies, for these readers, are absolute disasters.) Quite possibly a good number of the people who bought The Lord of the Rings book after 2001 found that it was nothing like what they had enjoyed onscreen, and they got no pleasure from it. Maybe the same thing happens to people who love Star of Indiana's 1991 show but find they can't sit still for the original Roman Festivals and The Pines of Rome when played by an orchestra at four times the length. Not to mention the Crown 2013 fans who are never going to sit through all five hours of Einstein on the Beach! Ottorini Respighi, were he living, or Philip Glass, might just say, "I don't need those people; they only appreciate my work in bastardized forms".

And yet, and yet . . .

The Tolkien quote in my signature comes from the last work published in his lifetime, "Smith of Wootton Major" (1966). Tolkien composed that story after being asked to write an introduction to a new printing of "The Golden Key", a 19th century fairy tale by George McDonald that Tolkien had mentioned liking as a child. Upon revisiting McDonald's story, he found that it contained all the elements he felt defined bad fantasy, so he abandoned the introduction and wrote "Smith" instead to show how it was supposed to be done. He even includes a sort of parody of McDonald in the character of a chef, who decorates cakes with twee elements like a little fairy queen. For Tolkien, "faerie" was supposed to be an overwhelming, sublime experience. But near the end of the tale, when the hero, Smith, who has seen the awesome, nearly indescribable fairy world, thinks ashamedly about how so many people, fairy means only a little confectionery figure on a cake, the real Fairy Queen tells him, "Better a little doll, maybe, than no memory of Faery at all. For some the only glimpse. For some the awaking. Ever since that day you have desired in your heart to see me, and I have granted your wish."

That's what I would have these composers realize.

[N.E. Brigand]

Because the original piece of music remains intact as the artist intended (just as the original mona lisa can still be viewed in a museum), and can be purchased and played in exactly the manner the composer intended.

Opinions clearly differ as to whether the variation on the original should be banned, or is in fact beneficial to the original piece and its composer.

The "book is still on the shelf" argument forgets that the adaptation often swamps the original in the minds of the public--and not necessarily because it's better. Popularity has no definite correlation with quality. I know one fan of Frank Baum's Wizard of Oz books who finds it quite sad that most people think of Oz as being only a dream land. In the book, it's a real place that Dorothy visits, not a vision created by being knocked on the head.

[Fish]

I'm absolutely NOT fine with this composer's hubris. Shame on him. It's music, for God's sake, not world hunger and he would be paid handsomely for letting someone arrange his works. He might even make more if he got off his high-horse and offered to actually arrange a desired piece. I'm with NEBrig, I'd love to see him get butchered by the judges for the attempt just to knock him off his high horse, but I'd even more like for him to be successful and draw interest from other composers.

What he's absolutely missing, and what so many in drum corps forget to impress upon composers with this attitude, is that many, MANY (myself included) would have never even known about many pieces of music if it weren't for drum corps arrangements. Don't just about all corps require MM's to listen to source music to learn it in order to make the arrangement a true and honest performance?

This guy needs to get off his attitude of superiority and remember that, in this medium unlike most "Beebs" music, the arrangement is appealing to kids who can actually play the composer's music, not some sports jock who just want to entertain his girlfriend (boyfriend, in "Beebs" case) in order to get from first to second base and home. Many of the kids playing his music today could be teaching it to their wind band kids in just a few years.

And I don't begrudge anyone earning maximum profit for themselves. But when they excuse it with "nobody can arrange my original intent" it smacks of narcissism and contempt for the larger picture, IMO.

Edited March 11, 2016 by Fish

[Fran Haring]

The "book is still on the shelf" argument forgets that the adaptation often swamps the original in the minds of the public--and not necessarily because it's better. Popularity has no definite correlation with quality. I know one fan of Frank Baum's Wizard of Oz books who finds it quite sad that most people think of Oz as being only a dream land. In the book, it's a real place that Dorothy visits, not a vision created by being knocked on the head.

And to this day, I still wonder why Dorothy simply just doesn't turn the hourglass back over to buy herself more time.

[MikeD]

The "book is still on the shelf" argument forgets that the adaptation often swamps the original in the minds of the public--and not necessarily because it's better. Popularity has no definite correlation with quality. I know one fan of Frank Baum's Wizard of Oz books who finds it quite sad that most people think of Oz as being only a dream land. In the book, it's a real place that Dorothy visits, not a vision created by being knocked on the head.

And then there is Gregory Maguire's series of Oz books as well, that take place before, during and after the timeframe of LFB's stories.

Not to mention that the musical "Wiz", based on Maguire's work, which is based on LFB's works, is very different from his books. He actually dedicated his second book in the series, "Son of a Witch", to the cast of the musical, so obviously he is fine with the changes, so we can guess which side of this conversation he would be on. One HUGE change is that in his first book that the show is based on, Elphaba, the Wicked Witch of the West, dies as in the LFB (ah! you see where her name comes from in Maguire's books!) original, while in the show she marches off into the sunset with Fiero, now the Scarecrow.

[MikeD]

Well, to be fair, Beethoven was in no position to mind :)

and if he WAS in a position to mind, he could not have heard the band anyway,

[perc2100]

Well, to be fair, Beethoven was in no position to mind :)

Ha; even if he had lived to see it Sousa could've told him, "no it's TOTALLY exactly the same, you're just not hearing it right"

[perc2100]

Now that is an absolutely fair statement. Heck, there are examples of drum corps arrangements that in my opinion were actually better than the original composition. Good examples of this are Russian Christmas Music ('85'86 SCV versions), Remembrance (Scouts), and even the vaunted Rocky Point Holiday ('83 Cadets).

But that's just my opinion (one Ron Nelson absolutely does not share).

I remember when I took an entrance exam for college, where they played a ton of music and we had to write down what it was, I knew so much stuff because of the drum corps arrangements: I wasn't as familiar (at that time) with the originals (like, say, Korean Folk Song) but new the pieces and did well on the placement exam because of drum corps.

And then I found myself not-as-enamored with originals due to instrumentation, cooler percussion parts in the drum corps version, etc. Lol