Jump to content

AntiA

Old Members
  • Content Count

    1,744
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    15

AntiA last won the day on July 26 2018

AntiA had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

31 Excellent

About AntiA

  • Rank
    Composer... and stuff
  • Birthday 09/26/1980

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

4,065 profile views
  1. Each publisher will have their own criteria to meet. It's not standard practice to omit bars that rest in a concert band score published to educators. If it were, I'd do what my publisher wanted me to do. Speaking of my publisher, I originally had more bass drum content and they suggested I reduce it down a bit more so it didn't get too redundant. We came to a meeting of the minds on how much was "just enough" to be effective. As for more percussion... thinking from a rehearsal standpoint, the percussionists can practice in a sectional while the band rehearses the chorale, and the whole ensemble can come together at the end to play. So I wanted all percussionists to be able to focus on the multiple marching bass drum part and lock it in. I didn't think it was necessary to add more percussion effects because those would just need to be included at climactic moments as well when the bass drums are playing. I also feel like "less is more" here. There's this whole period of time where there's no kind of percussive effects at all, just winds, so the whole entrance of the bass drums isn't expected. When it happens without the audience expecting it (those drummers must be setting up for the next tune or something, this is just another slow chorale...), it's more special as an arrival point. At least that was my thinking as I was working it into the piece.
  2. Hi. I've been a busy bee for the past 8 years since I last posted here on YC. I have a publisher now - Woo Hoo! - and I've had several works recorded, published, and marketed through them. This is a work that I plan to submit for publication in next year's release. My writing is geared specifically to middle and high school concert band programs in the United States. But enough about that. "Appalachian Heart" is a work I wrote for my mother. She's an equestrian - someone who rides, raises, and cares for horses - who dedicated her whole life to raising hers and ensuring they found good homes. When I was a kid, I would wake up to the sound of horses galloping up from the valley to the barn next to my room. The work is basically a pastoral or chorale of this. Imagine a sunrise, hearing her call to the horses, hearing the stir of hooves hitting the ground as they galloped up to greet her, the calm serenity of them grazing in the field during the day, and their return to the barn in the evening as the sun sets. This is the essence of the work. I scored marching band bass drums to be performed in unison to illicit the effect of horses galloping from a distance, growing in volume and intensity as they get closer. Bear in mind that this is written for attainability and not necessarily meant to be terribly difficult or nuanced. Still, I think it achieves a nice effect, and I hope you enjoy the group that performs it - this is the California State University, Fresno, Wind Orchestra directed by Gary P. Gilroy from their concert last May. Cheers, -A
  3. This. Why go to such absurd lengths to control what others do with your work? Once it's out there, those who consume it live and breath what we've made. There's no sense in taking that away from others. Music is a responsive/reactive medium, and reactions will vary from one person to the next. If someone sees this work you've slaved away over as a form of expression you never intended, well, that's music baby!
  4. From the wiki... "The Chinese economic reform (simplified Chinese: 改革开放; traditional Chinese: 改革開放; pinyin: Gǎigé kāifàng, literally Reform and Opening) refers to the program of economic reforms called "Socialism with Chinese characteristics" in the People's Republic of China (PRC) that were started in December 1978 by reformists within the Communist Party of China (CPC) led by Deng Xiaoping... "...For 2010, China was ranked 140th among 179th countries in Index of Economic Freedom World Rankings, which is an improvement from the preceding year." I think this points out that China is a Socialist nation, at least at this point, thus disputing the claim that Socialism always fails. Arranging a piece of music for your ensemble after purchasing the parts and score of the tune is still creating a derivative work. It's not like the copyright Nazi's are going to come breaking down the door demanding millions in damages over it, but as a technicality, it's not clearly defined as "fair use." To be fair about it, though, I don't live in a country that supports the arts nearly as well as Nikolas either. It's not to excuse myself from the pursuit entirely, since if I could live primarily off of composing music I would. Composition just isn't a practical pursuit for (presumably) the breadwinner of a family of four in the United States, at least for the majority of composers who are primary breadwinners for their families. Also, for me at least, it's not a case of wanting or not wanting to make money. I see "earning income" as a necessity, not a desire. It's a condition that I am forced to comply with, meaning my pursuits in life are restricted to anything I can do that provides an income, whether I enjoy doing it or not. The "Ahm an Ahhhrtiste!" mentality never made sense to my interests in composing music. I just don't really care one way or the other if my music earns money or not because it's of far greater meaning to me personally than fiscally.
  5. You cannot simply "own" something and say, "I have a capitalist society"... there must be some form of exchange in value among members and institutions of a capitalist society. Otherwise, there is revolt among those with less against those with more, and society collapses. "Always" fails? China is doing just splendidly, and they aren't a "Capitalist" society by any means - they are far more socialist coming out of communism than the United States that was founded on principles of the Roman Republic and Democracy. Care to amend this as well?
  6. Ownership is the basis of every social model, not just capitalist. The question to ask of each model is "what" can (or could) be owned as well as "who" can own. And take care when we discuss things like "motivation" that we're not treating it like a constant of capitalism. All motivation boils down to is the "desire" to do something. We can be motivated to create many things without ever "owning" those things. Motivation for creativity hardly "dies" without ownership. I stated my beliefs on the topic, you argued with me about my beliefs and failed to persuade me to change my mind, and now you're making blatant statements goading me into continuing this farce of a discussion. I really don't appreciate being trolled, Nik. Move on.
  7. Me: "I'm against ownership in general, so copyright really isn't something I support." Nikolas: "Copyright is necessary for people like me to make money." Me: "That's fine. It's necessary because of the way our society is now, but I don't support the way society is now and prefer the changes taking place that will make things like copyright no longer necessary. I see no reason to change my mind about copyright." Nikolas: "You're pissing in my cereal. You're a teacher earning a salary. I need copyright to make a living as a composer." I know it's not quoted exactly, but uhh... how would you like me to respond exactly? Should I lie and tell you that I think copyright is just "peachy" and recant my views? I'm not going to do that. While copyright and ownership are necessary for you, I don't support copyright. I genuinely believe ownership is detrimental to the human way of life and, more relevant to composition, detrimental to creativity. I'm still -not convinced- to believe otherwise. Sorry. Can we please put the thread back on the rails now?
  8. Wow, Robin. 5,000 posts! Someone deserves a cookie. :D
  9. I don't think it's a question of "right" or "wrong" but rather of what proliferates music and inspires creativity. Are we to say that it doesn't inspire creativity when a composer is inspired to write something based on something that already exists? This is the essence of creativity as I've come to understand it... but in the nomenclature of copyright it borders on a thin, subjective line of being called a "derivative work" or "fair use". There's certainly something to be said for the necessity of copyright at this moment because of the society in which we live. I've said nothing to the contrary, but it is my belief that this is not an absolute condition of society (meaning that copyright, and ownership generally, are as subjective as anything else in this world - and will not remain relevant with adequate technological and social development). I have a problem with the notion that people "deserve" something in return for the work they do, not because people aren't "deserving" but because no equitable outcome can result from it in practice. I work hours upon hours creating a musical masterpiece and earn a few dollars while some investment group CEO working 10-15 hours a week and playing golf over built-in 4-day weekends, deducting his travel and lodging expenses under his corporate business account from his company's taxes, rakes in millions of dollars in bonuses annually... no, there's no equity whatsoever. And even putting the shoe on the other foot, I'm certainly no more deserving of raking in millions annually than some CEO responsible for sustaining a giant corporation that employs tens of thousands of people earning pennies to every dollar I make. Either way, it's not equitable, and no amount of regulation or complex system restructuring will change this condition. The economics and politics of this "acquisition model" exist in perpetuity. These exist because a majority of people across the developed nations of the world still believe the social mantra that "opportunity" for "liberty and prosperity" exists due to free (or loosely regulated) markets and commerce, democratic/representative governance, etc. Well, maybe this was the case in theory, but it has never been so in practice. It never will be, but few have come to accept this reality. It's because of this mantra and the models that grow out of it that we're doomed to repeating cycles of revolution, prosperity, corruption, empiricism, and collapse again and again. Let's be clear that whether it's copyright or patents, homes or cars, food or clothing, it all comes down to "legitimate" equality of opportunity, and this cannot be gained in the throws of a world where acquisition is the means to this end - where the cost and "tangible value" of anything we need or produce grows only when it becomes less available (see the Diamond Water Paradox). I have yet to include corruption, power, and conflict which brings a whole new level of complexity to the issue. Sorry, I had no intention of derailing the thread, but it seems people wish to debate my opposition to ownership instead of the topic. So, not my fault... just wanted to point that out.
  10. A. The harshest group of Nazi using my work to inspire them to kill brings up a plethora of issues I could spend days discussing. Is my work responsible for their choice to kill? I mean, it's kind of laughable that you bring this up as a defense to copyright. B. An ad about condoms? I don't know... are they great condoms? More of the same... it's another laughable defense. I chuckled. C. Dance? What's wrong with dance, again? How about clarifying your defense for copyright first. I'm amused by the examples, some of them made me laugh out loud, but by and large, what is this supposed to convince me to believe? Do you really think "workaround" patents exist? Do you really think patent legislation would be an issue at all right now if anything you said was actually true? Here's a hint: Go do more research about the patent issue. The problem is that you have to make money to live, not that you have to own your music. It just so happens that you equate owning music to making money. Separate these two issues and you'll understand my point. We live in a world that's changing, thanks to technology, and holding steadfastly to obsolete social models doesn't really convince me to do the same. In my opinion, what I do now doesn't make a whole hell of a lot of economic sense. I should have developed an interest in something that was more financially rewarding than music. But flip this coin and it makes even better sense that I accept my interest for what it is and say to hell with the consequences. I'm over being driven to pursue money. I don't compose to make money or "earn a living," and I don't see that it really makes any sense to say, "I have to make money, so I'll let copyright do that for me," when composing music and earning money are so far removed at this point. Let's not forget the over-abundance of music in the world and how little of it is paid for. This is not merely a coincidence. It is the inevitable outcome of economics that anything "abundantly available" loses value, essentially lowering the COST. Cost, in economics, is determined by 1) supply and 2) demand, which presumably makes things which are in high demand in lower supply. Well, with advances in technology, things like music are abundantly available no matter what the demand is, so now what do we do, impose scarcity - do we artificially lower supply to raise the cost and "value" of music? Forget about it! Money is the problem, and with it, this desire to "own" scraggy rather than sustain abundance and "access" to those things. Copyright is a part of this paradigm, one that I simply don't believe to be relevant to the changes taking place in the world. I teach middle school children how to play music. They like popular tunes like Smoke on the Water and Ironman, but existing arrangements of these works are above their abilities. These arrangements are copyrighted and it is therefore illegal for me to arrange these tunes without permission from the publisher. Yet, my students want to learn how to play these tunes. I could actually use a simpler version to give them this experience and improve their skills. If the publisher doesn't agree to my arranging the tunes to the playing ability of my students, do I violate copyright anyway and give them the opportunity, or do I just tell them, "Sorry, it's a copyright issue...?" Seriously, this is a real world, legitimate example of how copyright is such an unnecessary obstacle. Even buying the arrangement and re-arranging the parts creates a new "arrangement" of the tune, a derivative work, and without permission to do this is infringement. So, yeah, screw copyright. Heh... if I'm "out of [your] loop," all the better for me. I'd prefer an open-source world to whatever you call this "loop" of yours. My point is, if the world is changing, I'm really not interested in holding onto outdated systems stagnating that change. I'm not saying this of Copyright but rather of "needing money" in general. Again, I'm against ownership in general and support changes which make ownership no longer necessary or relevant to society. Uhm... doctors take the Hippocratic Oath to do no harm (including inaction). This means a doctor is ethically bound to save a life if they possibly can. In the states, you're not obligated to be treated for a medical condition if your vital signs are stable. This sucks for people with cancer who remain stable until their cancer makes them unstable, at which point any treatment for cancer is too little too late. Refusing service is a fuzzy issue in the states for a plethora of reasons that would take days to discuss. How about we stick to the topic at hand for now, shall we? No. Again with the money... ugh. I don't know why I wasted time responding (mostly out of respect for a long inquiry), but I hope some of my reply gets through to you.
  11. I pursued composition-oriented coursework throughout college, almost exclusively. From this I learned how to become a better musician (specifically, percussionist). In my experience, I would include orchestration, counterpoint, theory, AURAL SKILLS, form and analysis, jazz theory, music survey courses (18th, 19th, and 20th Century), history, instrumental methods (brass, woodwinds, strings, percussion, etc.), conducting, and ensemble participation all under the umbrella of "composition". Applied lessons on instruments and in composition were areas where I felt "education" was hardly an applicable word to use. I didn't really "learn" or "apply" anything objective in these courses directly relevant to composition. Most of the time in composition lessons was spent looking at music I wrote with some mind-numbing debate over the "modernism" of the material and pandering over philosophical subject matter that had little if anything to do with composition. Most time spent in instrumental lessons was on performance technique and developing a practice routine. Seemed to me like composition lessons COULD have been better spent developing a routine for composing instead of wasting time deliberating the merits of using tonal harmony, what kinds of techniques we should consider "modern", etc. But it was what it was and may be different depending on where you study. All in all, I think a composition-exclusive curriculum is perfectly viable for those with an interest in music. Unfortunately, it's the administration and general philosophical meandering around issues that gets in the way of this... so, in theory, I think it works. It worked for me, even though the schools I attended probably never intended for their courses to be taken in this way, but it isn't necessarily practical depending on where you study.
  12. I'm against "ownership" in general. If someone wants to take ideas I come up with and do something with them that happens to fall under today's standards as "infringement," then I'm flattered all the same. The only harm that really comes from it is financial... which is sort of a lousy reason to complain about one person's ideas being used by someone else. If there's anything that's contrived in the whole mess, it's the notion that "financial" issues should concern us at all. They shouldn't, in my opinion. We don't "proliferate" music when we're too afraid to use ideas or concepts that already exist. In the same vein, "proprietary" technology is severely debilitating to progress and growth. Giving whoever "owns" that piece of information the power to horde it and prevent further exploration is just ridiculous. But hey, who am I to argue with the brilliant business and economic minds of our time? It's not like society is any better off without places like Wall Street leading us all to prosperity... man, 1980 to today has just been super-awesome! And that's how I feel about copyright, and ownership, generally.
  13. I agree. This is the point. I disagree with the point, though. There are some instances where something is copied from something before it. Vanilla Ice's "Ice-Ice Baby" copied Queen's "Under Pressure." Lady Gaga's "Allejandro" copied Ace of Bass's "Don't Turn Around." I mean, these are pretty legitimate cases where significant portions of music have been "reproduced" by someone else. It's a far stretch from this to something like, "Don't write any more classical-sounding music, it's already been done a million times." Personally, I think the issue is sensationalized far too much, from the likes of accusations like "style-copy" and other such stupidity (sorry, SSC). If we really want to stifle creativity, let's start a witch hunt for all the works that can be seen as "copying a style." How unfortunate that every piece copies "a style" of some sort. Few works actually create a style completely unique and no style is entirely original anyway. We can have another "Red Scare" and put composers on trial for "copying styles..." and the hypocrisy of it all will end up being that it's okay to copy new styles, but if you want to use older ones, combine them with new ones in some special way. No I think instead, when you find yourself in a cycle of uninspired composing, you may be doing something over and over again that you should change. If it happens to be that you're composing in a specific style or using the same instrumentation over and over again, make some changes. You're in school to learn the plethora of ways to make those kinds of changes so that when you find yourself trapped, you are capable of independently freeing yourself from monotony and pursuing creative opportunities that are new to you. This. This should be the message.
  14. No, I mean, if they're only going to take one kidney, it might be worth it... it's not funny if I have to explain it. :(
  15. If they're only going to take one, it still might be worth considering... :hmmm:
×
×
  • Create New...