The point being not that you were or were not "inspired by the image" to create the music that you did.
The point being that the image is not "the notation of the music that you performed".
There is a distinction to be made.
While graphical notation has its place, I believe part of the argument "against" it
in this particular case (ol' Pablo, here) is rather that no frame of reference is given from which to begin.
I don't think ANYONE is arguing that an image cannot
inspire music.
Let us at least not go off on an unrelated and indefencible tangent.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Will Kirk
Absolutely, I was the photographer, so why mention it?
Well OBVIOUSLY I composed it, it was INSPIRED by a photograph that I MYSELF took, you lack any real solid argument here
Almost every single composer and artist I have EVER studied, almost always gave credit to someone or something (A close family member, a painting etc..) for giving them the inspiration for this piece.
now... Did the family member or painting actually WRITE or COMPOSE the piece?
NO, they were INdirectly responsible for it, the only person who is responsible for doing something is the person that does it. For example, if a girl is mad because a boy she liked pissed her off, and she goes and smacks a wall in her anger and hurts her hand, is it the boy's fault?
No it's not, she was still in control and did it herself
The same with inspiration, the inspiration is not responsible for the final creation, the creator is
|