Jump to content

nikolas

Old Members
  • Content Count

    2,159
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    6

Everything posted by nikolas

  1. Well... I hold a piano diploma and have done concerts in Greece and outside of Greece. I also hold degrees in harmony, counterpoint and very soon (on the weekend) fugue. It's rather mandatory over here. Still my main degrees are an MMus in composition and a PhD in composition from Rhul (no idea who came up with the ROHO acronyms... It's always been rhul... :D). I think that you are born a composer and not made into one, but I know plenty composers who do NOT utilize their full potential due to lack of knowledge and/or experience! I guess the older members here might know me, but this probably for the younger generation of young composers! :D
  2. A very interesting video, followed by the performance of Schoenbergs' Fantasie op. 47 for violin and piano... and the performance It shows that Gould was very much into understanding such music (remember that this video takes place 50+ years ago if not more), and that Menuhin was not too fond of that, but showed great respect and a will to learn even at that age.
  3. SSC, I wasn't talking about you, thus the "pretty much everyone". Can't find the thread now, but it was about a guy with a website, who took all scores from IMSLP, including works of living composers and put it on his website, and was charging a subscription in order to download it. I can't remember the details, but I do think that AntiA also posted something helpful towards doing something about that... I could be wrong... Anyhow, how about not sticking to half a sentence but more towards a whole post... I mean you are making me look like a hate technology, which is totally not what I'm talking about here. :(
  4. I fully agree with that sentiment with one tiny detail in mind though. The idea of marketing always includes free samples. Whether it's porn, or a soap, or music. The companies themselves and the marketing directors all know that. Thus they offer free samples in magazines, in radios, in whatever... And thus, when we are talking about music, there's tv, there's radio and there's the internet. You can preview and actually relisten pretty much anything on myspace/soundcloud/youtube... So why actually go onto something which is VERY reasonable, but still illegal? The only reason is not convinience but to get a tiny bit more: the track on your ipod, etc... File sharing gets even more complicated because: 1. Usually people who pirate anything will not have bought the product anyhow, so there's a small % of lost potential revenue. 2. In a lot of cases it's not illegal and it's very reasonable! I mean really, as I said earlier, it's illegal to put a CD onto your ipod, but f*ck off... why not? Same goes for a simple mp3 sharing for educational, or preview purposes. 3. At the same time, though there's a huge business behind cracking software and then SELLING it. I have bought music in such a way in the waaaaay past. Same with software. 4. Finally I have a friend who has 400 GBs of music (and was asking how to classify them). Bull... who no earth will listen to THAT much music? He mentioned that he hasn't listened to more than 5% of that! Where's the line? I can't say but for private use and personal use... Unfortunately while the law can be bent, it can't be broken in the end. And RIAA is doing a heck of a poor job showing that they are understandable about this whole issue... :( So in the end regardless of who owns what, the bases for me should be that the creator should give permission for all file sharing etc. Honestly if someone asked me I'd be pretty open about this (especially considering the scores I'e posted thus far). On the other hand if someone doesn't ask and goes on distributing my stuff without my permission, I would be pissed (and I do recall a thread about this a couple of years ago and everyone was pretty supportive (including Antia) on this issue... :D How the world turns...)
  5. First of all, something rather public and personal. Dear Shaun decided to lock the other thread, and call me a troll. I find this rather disturbing for a number of reasons: a. He abused his powers as a mod, in order to stop a discussion take its course. I've been a mod here long before AntiA(tonality) was ever and also a member here for longer than he has. I hope that I have offered quite a lot, and not being called a troll. b. Most importantly when the thread in question was started, I replied in a somewhat legal manner (as much as my knowledge allowed), and to the direct point of the OP. Then AntiA came and stated his opposition to ownership in general, which is what I pointed out. c. Based on the negative points that AntiAs posts got in that thread, I'm safely assume that I wasn't the one causing trouble, but he was. d. moreover, I also stated that I started this thread, exactly to stop the other from going completely bonkers. Yet it was locked (and it was locked way after this one was created). ___________________________ Now, on this thread. The example was a competely silly one for a number of reasons. Nobody in his sane minds would put such a music in porn, especially knowing the legal troubles they would have, and the general sympathy that the composer would get... Then, as far as I know, copyright doesn't work exactly that. We (perhaps)'d like for it to work this way, but it actually doesn't: If I sell you a score of mine, I can't control how you perform it, or post it on youtube (actually I could possibly control you not posting on youtube, but it would be insane to do so, stupid and close minded). In every possible sense, it's impossible to control music after it leaves our computers, or drawers, or heads, or whatever. The point is that we still would like to feel it's ours somehow. For the exact reasons that the above posts mentions. Fame, control and money. The morality of the issue hasn't changed all that much really over the years, despite the help of technology. The mere fact that we now can share anything we want with others, doesn't mean that we should just like that. It means that we should reevaluate the law of copyright (plenty of things there that I disagree with), and also the way that society works, or we'd like it to work. An example: It's actually illegal to grab a CD you bought, and make it into an mp3 for your ipod. It is, I've checked and also contacted a number of different record companies, all of whom came back with the same reply: "It IS illegal, but the government (UK) is trying to find alternatives to that. In the meantime we're not in the business of chassing down valued customers like you, nor stop anyone from doing something which will help them enjoy the music we offer. So go ahead". (slighty paraphrased). I'm not saying that the laws of copyright shouldn't change (especially that obnoxious 50-70 years after the death of the composer... Completely silly and awful!), but it shouldn't be abolished like Antia, seems to suggest (no ownership). It's a combination of different elements that need copyright: I need to make a living, but also practice music as much as possible. In order to do that I need to earn my living off music. If I can't earn a living off music, can't get acknoledgement from my works, and can't control anything then why do it? In a silly paradigm: If, antia, someone took your works in this very forum and twisted them around, making you look like a fool, or other... What would be the problem, if you can't claim ownership of your own words? Or even worst, what if someone put words in your mouth? What then? ;)
  6. Actually me too, as I hope is evident from my huge posts... Problem with Shaun is that he tends to over generalize and make wrong assumptions about someone, or someone's sayings... Anyhow... there's another thread about this discussion now.
  7. I find that this is the bases of ownership: To have the right to choose where you music work is used or not. The rest comes later. So in this ugly example, if you decide that you allow such a use, as shown in the poll, it appears that you really have no problem with ownership of music. If you do not allow such use, then you support, at least a tiny bit the idea of copyright (the right to copy and the right to use basically). The rest is history. For the record, I created this seperate thread, so as not to derail the other one futher... :)
  8. Actually let me be very clear. I find little wrong to someone downloading an mp3, or a score or something. It's natural and it's a substitute to getting it right on your own. I mean is it illegal to listen to a song on the radio and then playing it on the piano on my own? I hardly think so. I feel very bad for DRM: I hate the damn thing. I dislike pirate control and dongles, iLoks and the such: They are trouble for legit users. I'm a huge supporter of free education and free open source software. I use plenty of those, have donated, and I hope I have offered a lot of knowlegde in this and other forums (music related of course). That said I understand that a work can be like a child: Despite monetary issues, or other, it still remains 'yours' somehow. You can't really stop someone from (mis)using your work, but this doesn't mean that we should let go of all ownership notion in art/music. At least I don't think so. And money does come into play. If I am to put a large sum of money into learning, producing and circulating my music, I should somehow get that sum back, plus more to put back into making more music. Related with copyright or not (copyright is a tool after all), it remains valid, whether Antia likes it or not. You want to disolve all copyright and expect the composers to keep composing? Find some other way to get them money, in order to concetrate on what they should be doing. Then again this would probably lead to the abolishment of all values: The audience are the best judge of music, despite academics, semantics and other. Take that away and put the government in charge and see what happens. Clasical music is no exception: What remained of the old times is what the audience and pros alike decided to keep "alive". The rest has been burried. From all the composers funded by kings and nobles, only a part has travelled through time!
  9. AT LAST! You replied! :D Of course they were supposed to ammuse everyone! They are hardly real examples.But the point, which you totally missed is this: You create a work, which you totally adore, dedicated to... your dying mother (for example), and this exact work, so dear in your heart, is being used in a number of different ways, none of which brings any memory to why the work was created but quite the opposite. That's the point. Not that music is responsible to anything, etc... Hell yes! I've done my research very well thank you. you do know who I am, what I'm doing, etc. Don't you think I've done my research well enough? ;) I seperate those two to understand your point perfectly, but it remains that all I can do is compose, to make a living. If I can't own my music, how am I going to make money out of it to make a living? How will I dedicate the number of years in order to reach the status that I desire and make money? Same goes for everything else. And this is exactly why you're out of the loop. You compose for the heck of it, you don't expect to make any money and you piss on others people way of making money. Regardless if you agree or not! ;)In the end if I'm offering a service I should be getting paid, right? And not only that, I should create something that I call 'mine': This is elementary stuff: A drawing was done by someone in your classroom, you don't take it and show it as yours, do you? How would THAT feel? Here's where I will seperate the two issues you talked about earlier: Making money and owning music.Problem comes with plenty of reasons, and in all honesty my irk with copyright abandance lies more in the '(whateverish) moral' sense, rather than the economical, regardless of my earlier posts. Yes, it's true that it helps make money (and there's no other way to do it really, if you let go of any monetary value in music: Nobody is going to pay for nobody, so I'm out of a job immediately!), but it doesn't help, and the bullshit from RIAA is not helping anyone! (Yes, it's a contradiction to what I've been saying I know that). Same goes for your example of Smoke on the water (btw, bliah tune... so old... can't you come up with something more decent to give them? :D). I mean really, are we not allowed to... whistle a tune while taking a bath? Or play a tune on teh piano because we like it? There's a line somewhere there... It's music, everybody can hum it, play it, etc. Not circulate it around for whatever reason, but still... First of all I would strongly assume that this falls into the 'fair use' clause of the copyright law, and you wouldn't have a problem, so you're basically drawing a strawman here, but anyhow:As I said above, there's a limit to what copyright should or not should do. I'm totally against DRM, I'm very much in favor of open source software (heck, I did my whole PhD in Open Office and donated a fair amount to various open source projects and others... BTW, if you remember a thread about recording the piano, etc, I was the one who started offering money to the guy offering to record the piano works, for a lost mic... ;)). And I'm very much in favor of education, whatever the cost! That said there is also a limit to what one can do with a piece of music. But you can't relate cause you don't compose like your life depended on that, while I do! Read my first paragraph. Take up Ave Maria and make it a soundtrack for a porn movie! By all means! But if Ave Maria was YOUR tune, how would you feel? Would you feel that you're possing an unnecessary obstacle? Or feel strongly about not having your Ave Maria played while Dark Angel was having @n@l...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. Ready my earlier comment on the loop: You don't compose for a living, so you don't give a scraggy to enter MY shoes! 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. Yes, but how am I going to make a living? I simply don't get this! I am 33, and have based all my life in training to be a composer, etc... Give you an alternative that works (without having to work on Wall-Mart), and then we can discuss further. And I won't keep composing, although I have a dire need to do, despite my look as a dry professional, if I can't solidify some kind of income. why should I? Would you keep teaching if someone said you wouldn't get paid at all for the next few years, or until something else would change? 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... let's discuss it from another angle instead: You missed the point, yet again: You CAN refuse service, can't you? In most cases (even doctors, which does apply in the States and I very well know that). So why can't I refuse you listening to my tunes? Basic copyright issue... :D (which I actually can't if you've bought, downloaded, heard on the radio, whatever the tune). Refusal of service. Don't like it? It's like ownership, isn't it? 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. Well, you have your salary, I don't. I need my clients to know that they will be able to make a living in order to hire me. Basic economics in the simplest of sense. How can they secure that? Really, you're are pissing all over from your safe ground of being a teacher... Your salary, your pension plan, etc... You don't care the bit for others, yet you seem to claim for freedom of copyright, etc... EDIT: Switched too Italics after the middle, cause YC forum won't let me use so many quotes! :D bliah...
  10. "At the same time" does not apply fully. It can't apply fully. But right now I am working on a number of short (easy) preludes for piano (I still need another 4 to finish), and at a larger form works for piano again, with much more contemporary techniques and aeasthetics, and much more difficult for the performer. Finally I have contract for 4 games, two of which are on stand right now and the other two are active. That said at the same time since January I have scored another game and did music for two commercials. I have to be honest that in the case of the computer games, I got used to working in the fast lane, day by day and changing ideas constantly. It can't work any other way. With concert hall music things are quite harder I have to admit. BTW< Hey Robin! ^_^ Nice to see you again!
  11. As far as I know, in most countries you don't even have to put the @ sign... It's not necessary, although it helps.
  12. EDIT to leave out a tiny bit of swearing here... Let's go quote by quote... It's not an idea, but a tangible work of art. Let me give you an example, for you to understand: You create a wonderful work, for the loss of your mother. Then this work, for whatever reason is being used by:a. The harshest group of nazi, when they kill young coloured people. b. An ad about condoms on the telly. c. As a dance track, while taking whatever pills are available right now. THEN come and tell me that it's all about the money, etc... Do you REALLY think that patents are the same as copyright? First of all, patents hardly last as long as copyrights do. Second of all, it is a fact that when you apply for a patent you are FORCED to give analytical plans of your idea and how it works, etc. Third of all it is also a fact that there are many workarounds patents, so there's nothing being stopped or held back for too long.Then again there's trademark, there's patents and there's copyright, none of which are the same, right? ;) ... So... Let's see.I spend 50 hours a week or more working on music. I make no money out of it and I have to feed a family of 4 (including me and I'm huge), along with any expenses to promote my art and music, for free or not for free (even the Internet costs money and I have to use it order to post in YC about my works, no?). So how am I supposed to make a living? True to an extent, but really, isn't classical music being circulated enough? Do you have any problems using Ligeti, or Pederecki, or Messiaen techniques? Nope, cause there's nothing stopping you from doing so. In fact I'd venture even futher to say that you can directly quote composers' works (I've done so in academic work), and have absolutely no legal issues at all! I mean, if you think about it, when you publish a score (with whatever price tag, from free to gold coins), you automatically allow everyone to use it. Either as a performer (unless you plan on chassing down every pianist and go "Oh... you're not good enough. Give me back my work"), or as a composer to take inspiration, or ideas, etc. There's nothing to stop anyone and there shoudln't be something. Of course it's not. Take my works and perform them (ergo voice them up), any way you like. Even without the respect that I'd require.I have a feeling that you two are talking while being out of the loop! The point is simple: If you provide a service you should be paid for it, no? Either by your clients, your audience, your government, etc. And, as it always happens in 95% of the cases you still HOLD the right to refuse service. You can't press a private teacher to take you on a student, nor a lawyer to accept you, etc. In fact in the states you can't even press on a doctor to save your life, right? Isn't the above the exact idea of copyrights? The right to allow or not service to someone? And to get compensation for your services? And while we're at it, how about live performances? Do they hold any copyrights? Any rights? What happens to the recording of that? Is it THAT much different to automatically get 0 monetary value?
  13. Depends on what you do with it. If you copy the entire score, then we're certainly not talking about getting inspiration. If you get a small part and develop it yourself, then you could be talking about getting inspiration. But either way, if you know you're doing it, then you know that you're not exactly "nice" (<- whatever this may imply really... :D)
  14. I *think* that in the professional world, it's much less common in concert hall music rather than in media music. For example, I was asked to follow, closely, a theme from the Titanic movie, for an ad, since it was a direct reference to that. I had to 'steal' the theme, but make it clever, by not following it exactly! And thus I did and made money. In movies (and less so computer games), the idea of a temp track is always there: Until the composer comes on board, the producers will put some music track which they think fits, in order to carry on adapting the film. When the composer comes in, they usually have to follow those temp tracks quite closely... In the concert hall, things are not so tough, but I have seen a PhD student, years ago, to have a bunch of scores in front of him, in order to get 'inspiration' for the next work (or to actually just get ideas for cues, etc...). I've copied a bar here and there from other works, not so much as because I didn't know what to put, but to put a reference on from where my inspiration lies, or to pay homage to the works, or the composers that influenced me! Finally you do get the case of the student, who will copy, consciously or not, a composer and do so because they either have no control, or they're doing so because it feels great... I mean just look at all those cover bands: They all play songs of other people. And feels professional when you can accomplish that professional sound! Legal implication: If you copy melody then you could be in trouble, especially if you do so in a commercial project. If you follow, note by note harmonic progression (which would include the voices doing the exact thing), then you're in trouble. If you follow chord progression, as simple as that, you could escape trouble, since chord progression, drums and orchestration are NOT copyrighted! (I mean really... Ligetti and Pederecki have done so many clusters before the rest of the world, but film msuic (thriller) is filled with such ideas... You CANNOT copyright an idea and orchestration falls towards the area of idea, rather than practice). Hope this helps a bit...
  15. Cool beans! I'm actually amazed that you DIDN'T know it existed. If you think about it YC offers lessons for free, feedback on your scores for free, recordings of your piano works (from you) for free, etc. Why not some more generosity.Good will can bring some good will back, no? ;)
  16. dtobenski is the founding member of the site I mentioned and it's on his signature! This is how I found it! :D And of course printing out scores from your printed, and comb binding them is not exactly a pro job...
  17. Hi Dennis and welcome. A very interesting post, yours is [/Yoda] I just have a couple of pointers to make, if I may. True on the most part, except the quality control.The fact that you CAN self publish your works, doesn't make it good. When you get published by anyone big, or anyhow a publishing house, you do seem to get some kind of 'seal of approval' for your work. Then it's the editing. I've very rarely seen scores, non published professionally, that are great to look at. (I have to admit that the newmusicshelf.com features some great scores though...). Again true, but to a certain extent. I know, for a fact (anyone remember a survey I did a few months ago? ;)), that there's a lot of interest for contemporary music and the problem is having it reachable. There are, still, stores that stock contemporary music, and the fact that stores go internet based doesn't make it less of a store. Perhaps more difficult to sell a physical item, but still amazon has shown the way. Finally, the idea remains: You can vouch for yourself and your own scores. You can't really sell successfully your music, unless you have some way of proving you are good and others have told you. As I said, anyone can make a decent recording with GPO/EW/VSL/whatever and make a score with a cutdown Finale/Sibelius/Notion/other software. (Not to mention some AMAZING free alternatives like repear (free trial, not free, but extremely fairly priced), lilypond, or even better musescore! But unless the public, the people PAYING you make you good, you can't claim you are good! Even a degree is not enough! Quality control is heavily missing from anything self published! Not to say that it can't be done, or that slef publishing is bad in itself, or even that there isn't some AMAZING music out there that is self published (or even not that) and deserves a fair chance. But at least have a very solid idea (not you, Dennis, generally speaking), what goes around in the world...
  18. While the above post(s) ARE indeed very informative and quite correct, and so is John's blog post, I find that there are many aspects missing. The main part about getting published is NOT to get your works on a piece of paper, fold it, staple it and send it... somewhere. It's not even about selling it, or collecting royalties, or anything like that. It's about exposure! And it's already quite difficult to present yourself in a great, professional way, if you're self published, let alone gather all the exposure you deserve. The fact that you're self published, also means that you've never been 'judged', you've never put yourself out for exposure, in order to publish your works. I bet my son (aged 7) can publish his scores (should he write music and this IS too much, I know). The promotion you will get when you enter a publishing house, should be big. If you put down the amount of work it takes to market yourself, to present you in a decent, professional manner, etc, you might realise that things are not that easy after all! Not impossible but still. And just to make myself clear: Self publishing IS great and IS possible. But if one is to do it, they better do all the research and do a GREAT job, which involves much more than just a printed and a copy of Sibelius/Finale... ;) (and an e-mail to ASCAP, ok...)
  19. Depends on the mics. I own some audioworks mics that cose around 3,000$, and along with the preamp we go more than 5,000$ in total, but I doubt we're looking at such prices... A decent mic could be around 200$, which is reasonable enough to be gathered with a few donations... And of course paying for a recording could also work, I don't doubt that, just saying...
  20. Sepharite: if you have a paypal account, let us have it so we can get on with it... :)
  21. I don't know what kind of mic we're talking about, but perhaps the YC community (seeing how beneficial your membership has been so far and your offerings) could arrange for a small donation (from the members)? I'd gladly offer 10-20$ to get a new mic for you, if the rest would also chime in... :)
  22. Sorry for the double post but this post seems to go to different directions than my previous post, so... _________________________ Why would one want to get their works published? - Because they think it will bring money. - Because it will bring more commissions. - Because it will bring fame. - Because it will make their music reachable to the general public. One should answer the above, before venturing into the publishing business... In general terms, if I may say so, selling your scores through a publisher won't get you tons of money. It won't make you make a living. The % you may get from the actual sales are quite low... For example, in text publishing (which is better in monetary terms than music publishing), a deal I heard was that the author will be getting 25% (minus taxes, VAT, blah blah), AFTER the first 1000 books have been sold (so that the publisher will make their money back). Bad deal but that's the bottom line. More commissions? This is tied to getting more famous and making your music accessible for the audience/public/interested partis. Nothing on its own will bring fame and fortune and more commissions and performances. A personal example: I don't have any published works, as of now, but I do have live performances, commissions, etc. It's not necessary to get a work published. Of course it doesn't harm and it IS the publishers job to push the works, but NOT the composer. Pushing the composer is a job for an agent, not the publisher. _________________________ Main living for composers, at least in my case, can come from a variety of sources, including working as a composer for media, teaching, getting commissions, etc... NOW I'm done posting in this thread for now! :D
  23. I may be able to help with that actually... I'm VERY serious. For those who do not know me, I hold a PhD in composition, my works have been performed in Europe and USA and I'm a lovely guy in all! ^_^ If anyone is interested in publishing their works, please e-mail me at nikolasideris *AT* hotmail *DOT* com. Exactly because I'm a lovely guy I can't: a. Make any solid promises right now, without seeing the scores. b. Make any promises that I'll provide feedback as to why or why not a work(s) is good/not good enough for publishing. c. Can't spill any more beans right now, for commercial reasons. But really, e-mail me and talk to me, it can't do any harm, can it? _________________________________ Self publishing (because I've tried it) is very limited and cannot reach the same people a publishing house would do. Nor shed the same marketing light... :-/ Plus 90% of the times the scores that are self published, are missing the actual part of the 'editor' which is crucial for an error free publication. :(
  24. I think that it doesn't to the least. It's concetrated on music history, a little contemporary and very slight details on reverb (the cathedreal question). In all it seems detached from the real world... (And lacking any teaching material questions actually, but I would imagine these to be in a different test or section (?))
×
×
  • Create New...