Symphony #1498 "Line in Woooooow!"

Originally Posted by robinjessome

Perhaps someday you'll understand....it's not like that at all.

But see, you've failed to point out WHY - to me, in both scenarios, the "jose" character provides the initial idea for art in a certain medium (for this argument let's just assume literature is art), and even shapes and directs it in some fashion, but neither time does he actually compose the final product - the book or the music - rather, it is the "performer" character that does that - whether by improvising based on a painting or by writing a book based on a general idea. In neither case, then, should jose be considered the "author" or the "composer" just because he came up with a broad, general idea that was developed into the actual artform - music or literature - and should instead be considered inspiration only, while the actual author/composer is the "performer" character.

You have to understand that in no way am I condeming improvisation, abstraction, non-standard notation, new ideas, or anything else of the sort. I am merely saying that this picture is not, and never can be, music without some intermediate step that includes defining "yellow" as "F#" or "vertical line" as "quarter note" (or even as "hold the note for awhile," if you want to be abstract).

Originally Posted by almacg

If I look at the Mona Lisa, and then improvise based on my reaction to the painting, would Leonardi Da Vinci be considered a composer?
Even if the intention of a piece of art was to inspire music, I don't think it makes the artist a composer in a traditional sense, because the music itself would be coming from the performer, and I personally would therefore bestow the title composer on the perfomer/s. Again, even if a drawing is meant to inspire music, the title composer refers to somebody who creates musical art, not somebody who inspires it in others.

Well, as I mentioned before, I don't believe a composer creates music on her or his own at all, generally. (I know this sounds extreme, but it's actually quite logical, isn't it?)

So, to your last sentence: No, exactly the other way round. A performer creates musical art, possibly together with a composer who provides a more or less clear musical idea.

Performers are as much musical artists and creators of music as composer (and even more, in a certain sense, as they actually produce music). I know there are many composers who see themselves as the artists and the performers as people who "execute" their art. I strongly dislike this view and I find it harmful to a lively and fruitful musical culture.

If you want to be the only author and proprietor of your music, then either play it yourself, or get into electronic music (which certainly does have its merits too). Otherwise, think of your music as a collaborative work between the performer and yourself and grant your performers some artistic individuality.

The tradition of seeing composers as the "real artists" and the performers as mere virtuosi still seems to be very strong, even though some developments in the 20th century have strengthened the idea of performing musicians being as much individual, artistic creators of music as composers, like it used to be in early music.

Still, nobody seems to mind if a composer dictates every small nuance of the music, leaving the performer with no choice at all, but as soon as it's the other way round, people suddenly fear for the sanctity of the Holy Act of Composition.

In short: Who cares if the "main creative act" is on the performer's side? Is that really against the principle of composition?

And to your first question: No, I wouldn't consider da Vinci a composer in such a case, because he didn't paint the Mona Lisa with a musical intent, but as a piece of visual art. Quite like I don't consider an airplane pilot a composer even though he creates sounds with his airplane, whereas I would consider someone consciously making music of airplane sounds a composer. And like I don't consider birds composers, but I consider Messiaen a composer (and I would consider someone a composer who just records birds and plays back the tape in a concert too).

Originally Posted by Dev

...I am merely saying that this picture is not, and never can be, music without some intermediate step that includes defining "yellow" as "F#" or "vertical line" as "quarter note".

I am merely saying that to many musicians, that picture is and can easily be, music - even without any intermediate step to define anything.

....

*gives up...again*

Originally Posted by Gardener

Does it really matter so much to whom the music "belongs"?

Yes, especially if you planned to make a living off of it.

Originally Posted by robinjessome

I am merely saying that to many musicians, that picture is and can easily be, music - even without any intermediate step defining any parameters.

To me, the person who plays the music is simply being inspired by a picture, and they are in fact the composer of the piece.

As for Gardener's main argument, what if we took that to the extreme? Would you be okay if you composed a lengthy solo for bassoon and the bassoonist took all the credit for it? Music is certainly a collaborative effort, but a performer should take credit for their ability to play an instrument, whereas the composer should take credit for their ability to create music. Neither should take credit for the other's skill. For this picture, however, a performance of it should be considered "Joe Schmoe playing an original composition inspired by this picture" Rather than "Joe Schmoe playing a composition written by someone else"

Originally Posted by Dev

Yes, especially if you planned to make a living off of it.



To me, the person who plays the music is simply being inspired by a picture, and they are in fact the composer of the piece.

As for Gardener's main argument, what if we took that to the extreme? Would you be okay if you composed a lengthy solo for bassoon and the bassoonist took all the credit for it? Music is certainly a collaborative effort, but a performer should take credit for their ability to play an instrument, whereas the composer should take credit for their ability to create music. Neither should take credit for the other's skill. For this picture, however, a performance of it should be considered "Joe Schmoe playing an original composition inspired by this picture" Rather than "Joe Schmoe playing a composition written by someone else"

Not unless Joe Schmoe considers it a real composition and gives credit to the composer. Jeesh. Box. Living in it.

Oh for Christ's sake, can you idiots stop giving me this *sigh* *rolleyes* bullshit everytime I make a point? Can you not accept the fact that we disagree and try to present an argument that proves your point instead of reacting like a little kid screaming "NUH-UH!" if I claim you're not in the right?

The problem is essentially that the argument you're heading for is "why should anything be considered anything? Why should words have meaning, why should colors have names?" You can be damn sure that there definitely is a "too open-minded" and we're slowly getting there. If you've never in your life said "that is a bad idea" then you are lying because you would be dead. I'm not going to go jump off a building just to "give the experience a chance."

Originally Posted by Dev

Oh for Christ's sake, can you idiots stop giving me this *sigh* *rolleyes* bullshit everytime I make a point? Can you not accept the fact that we disagree and try to present an argument that proves your point instead of reacting like a little kid screaming "NUH-UH!" if I claim you're not in the right?

The problem is essentially that the argument you're heading for is "why should anything be considered anything? Why should words have meaning, why should colors have names?" You can be damn sure that there definitely is a "too open-minded" and we're slowly getting there. If you've never in your life said "that is a bad idea" then you are lying because you would be dead. I'm not going to go jump off a building just to "give the experience a chance."

Look here, just because you worked yourself into a non-argument, there's no need to get angry. (edit: LOL I totally fucked up this line!)

As for your previous post, the argument is self-evident! You state that YOU consider this and that, but then talk about musicians and "how it's considered" by others, that is to say, not you.

If musicians simply consider a painting such as this proper score for music, and the painter the composer, you're out of arguments. You may not like it, but it doesn't DEPEND on your view what other people do or how they interpret this.

That's why I didn't bother to say much, I thought it was obvious by this point in the narrative that, like Robin, Gardener, etc have been saying this isn't simply a "Well no, that's not that." It's a "It can be," therefore, "It will be depending on who looks at it."

Hell, I can go play something while reading and doing my own interpretation of this painting right now and post it here and say pablo here was the composer and that I played a piece written by him. What then? Sure, disagree with me, but I just killed your point and argument.

Sorry, that's what you're apparently not getting. Your opinion is fine, but in practice it doesn't work so long as someone actually goes and does what you say "isn't supposed to happen", such as the "This won't be considered..." statement.

Actually, what we've been arguing is that I don't consider it a score and robin does (with a few other posters on each side), and we've been saying why we have our opinions. Thank you for pointing out that we've both been arguing our opinions, I wasn't aware of that.

And yes, obviously we can both agree that some people will think one way about something while others won't. To put it bluntly: duh.

Originally Posted by Dev

Music is certainly a collaborative effort, but a performer should take credit for their ability to play an instrument, whereas the composer should take credit for their ability to create music. Neither should take credit for the other's skill.

But it's exactly my point all along that the performer's skill isn't just "playing the instrument", but in fact creating music too. There just isn't a clear separation between the composer's and performer's "skills". Between electroacoustic composition and free improvisation on both extremes of the spectrum there are smooth transitions.

If you take the standpoint that the composer creates music and the performer "executes" it on her or his instrument, we'll of course never agree. (But honestly, can you really disregard every form of music where the performer actually takes part in the invention of the music? I think that would be rather sad.)

And if a bassoon soloist took played a composition by me and claimed it was his own, it just would go against common courtesy. Generally. But in theory he would even have a point: It's impossible to list all influences to your music, so you might as well call the person the creator of the music who turns it into an acoustical result, leaving out everyone else. It would be a rather extreme stance of course.

But it's certainly not that extreme in the example here, as clearly both parties contribute to the final result, and both parties would be mentioned in the concert program. I don't see a huge problem there.

My point is mainly that trying to define the "level of influence" every party in the musical collaboration has had is pointless, as it is so different from piece to piece and there are no objective ways to judge it. If you, as a performer, are willing to play from a graphical score like this, then you probably should have no problems with calling the composer composer. Otherwise, just don't do it.

Also, I'm still interested in a reply to my question posted earlier about what you'd think if the score included the two verbal instructions I mentioned.

Originally Posted by Gardener

Also, I'm still interested in a reply to my question posted earlier about what you'd think if the score included the two verbal instructions I mentioned.

Begrudgingly, yes, I would consider it a score (albeit not a very good one), but essentially only because it more or less has the label "musical score" pinned on it, and really for no reason other than that.

But basically, I think where we're stuck is that we're both willing to say that this picture can inspire someone to play music, but I'm not willing to give credit for the actual audial result to the picture's painter whereas you are, and in that respect, I'm pretty sure we're never going to sway the other to our viewpoint.