... the arts politics and class - a lesson for R3

[hedgehog]

Hmm it is a dilemma - the composer who gets a commission for writing some music then feels the freedom of being able to disseminate their work thus "undercutting" the composer who has written something without a commission who then seeks to earn something after by charging for parts/score/recording.......tricky.

Then there are the instrumentalists who can object to a recording (done or paid for by the composer) being made freely available, even though they have been paid for rehearsals and performances, thus restricting the composer's ability to make their work known to the world - not uncommon, in my experience.

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

it may be worth remembering that nesta is not asking for work to be given away free & forever; as dear Aunt puts up progs for a month after broadcast i do not see why grant aided art can not have a similar temporary exposure even if a very modest charge is applied ... and this might lead to an increase in sales/income for artists and their institutions ...

i am an oap living in the East Midlands and i can not afford the cost of a trip to London and the London ticket prices ... nor can very many of local families with teenage kids who might want to see a play/opera/concert .... one really has to book to get seats in the local cinemas/arts clubs for performance relays .... why not cheaper repeats of recorded events?

i am sure some are already available [in EU?]

[Richard Barrett]

Some interesting points being made here.

My first response is that the idea of a composer being someone who is not themselves directly involved in performing is a relatively recent phenomenon and, I suspect, one that isn't going to be as common for that much longer as it was during the 20th century, especially with the way that contemporary technology encourages a composer-performer(-instrument builder) approach to musical creation. As an aside on fg's case study: I know plenty of people in that situation. In the 1980s I could see the way things were going in terms of using "the usual channels" to try to find a place in the world for music regarded as pointlessly difficult by the majority of performers, so together with a few like-minded colleagues I got involved in setting up a performing group (Ensemble Exposé) which was the principal medium for the performance of my work for some years.

Secondly: in electronic composition and (still more) improvised music the nature of "the work" is very different from in the "classical" paradigm. In the former case the work is something endlessly and precisely reproducible; in the latter the creative work only continues to exist (if then) as a snapshot in the form of a recording. And these models seem more relevant to me at this point than the "classical" one.

Thirdly: these days of course scores are also something "endlessly and precisely reproducible". You don't have to hunt for too long on the internet to find downloadable pdfs of say Messiaen's Turangalîla for which B&H charge £122 for a study score. Once something has been uploaded somewhere, it's basically out of everyone's control. Given that this is the situation on the (cyber)ground, I would prefer to ensure that anyone wanting material for my work should be able to get hold of the most recent corrected/revised version. I've received a great deal of gratitude from (especially) music students in poorer parts of the world who would never be able to afford the stuff. These people are the next generation of creative musicians.

Fourthly and finally: returning to fg's post (and the more general original point of the thread), I think that too much of our culture already depends on preservation, ownership, scarcity value. This is the aspect that really creates an "elitist" divide. Returning to my second point, I would like to live in a culture where art/music/etc. are participatory rather than consumable, something you do (including as a listener/viewer) rather than something you own. After three years I've seen no reason to backtrack on my decision.

On the other hand, my income probably has gone down somewhat as a result, so if anyone would like to send me a fiver I can furnish the details of my PayPal account

[ahinton]

Some interesting points being made here.

My first response is that the idea of a composer being someone who is not themselves directly involved in performing is a relatively recent phenomenon and, I suspect, one that isn't going to be as common for that much longer as it was during the 20th century, especially with the way that contemporary technology encourages a composer-performer(-instrument builder) approach to musical creation. As an aside on fg's case study: I know plenty of people in that situation. In the 1980s I could see the way things were going in terms of using "the usual channels" to try to find a place in the world for music regarded as pointlessly difficult by the majority of performers, so together with a few like-minded colleagues I got involved in setting up a performing group (Ensemble Exposé) which was the principal medium for the performance of my work for some years.

Secondly: in electronic composition and (still more) improvised music the nature of "the work" is very different from in the "classical" paradigm. In the former case the work is something endlessly and precisely reproducible; in the latter the creative work only continues to exist (if then) as a snapshot in the form of a recording. And these models seem more relevant to me at this point than the "classical" one.

Thirdly: these days of course scores are also something "endlessly and precisely reproducible". You don't have to hunt for too long on the internet to find downloadable pdfs of say Messiaen's Turangalîla for which B&H charge £122 for a study score. Once something has been uploaded somewhere, it's basically out of everyone's control. Given that this is the situation on the (cyber)ground, I would prefer to ensure that anyone wanting material for my work should be able to get hold of the most recent corrected/revised version. I've received a great deal of gratitude from (especially) music students in poorer parts of the world who would never be able to afford the stuff. These people are the next generation of creative musicians.

Fourthly and finally: returning to fg's post (and the more general original point of the thread), I think that too much of our culture already depends on preservation, ownership, scarcity value. This is the aspect that really creates an "elitist" divide. Returning to my second point, I would like to live in a culture where art/music/etc. are participatory rather than consumable, something you do (including as a listener/viewer) rather than something you own. After three years I've seen no reason to backtrack on my decision.

On the other hand, my income probably has gone down somewhat as a result, so if anyone would like to send me a fiver I can furnish the details of my PayPal account

Yes, indeed, lots of interesting discussion here, especially from you and fhg.

One example of a composer whose work is being made freely available as you have generously made yours is Leo Ornstein, whose son Severo has done just that, at his own expense; one can only applaud the principle of this.

But - and it's a big but (to me, at least) - whilst I understand that your reluctance to accept performance/broadcast/recoprding royalties on your work and publishers' payments in respect of your copyright in them when they sell copies of it is predicated upon a deprecation of the notion of payments in respect of "intellectual property" as distinct from payments of fees for writing your music; is it not the case that, when you are composing and writing it down, what you are working with is your "property" in the sense that the ideas and the ways in which you work them into pieces are yours and yours alone? I think that you are wary of notions of "property" as though they somehow can do no other than represent some kind of capitalist advantage to its "owners", in the sense that you "own the property" that is your work and no one else does (and if I'm interpreting this wrongly, then please say so and put me right!).

Not every composer IS paid for doing the work that they he/she does to produce works; those who are not so paid can get nothing for their pains unless they have some of it performed, broadcast or recorded and thereby derive at least some recompense from that in the form of royalty payments. What would such composers do for money if that source of income was also removed from them? - obviously either starve or try to subsidise such work from income from other sources.

Yes, once a work is complete and out there, it's not its composer's "exclusive property" because it was never originally intended to be so; it was intended to be listened to by others, whose "property" (only not really!) it then becomes by virtue of their having benefited from listening. I don't, however, see that as being wholly incompatible with the notion of a composer's entitlement to royalties on certain performance, broadcasts and recordings of his/her work, especially if such work might not get done at all if it stands no chance of generating some form of payment in respect of it. Speaking personally, I'd be on the street had I been entirely unable to depend on royalties; I wonder how many composers could manage to keep going without them and depend solely upon commissions?

Yes, please give me instructions as to how to send you money via PayPal and I will oblige by transmitting that fiver; sadly, I can't afford more than that (and if you knew the state of my finances you'd well understand why!) but I'll do it gladly!

[hedgehog]

I have always supplied parts and scores to performers for nothing, or in paper days for the cost of the paper and postage if for many instruments. Nearly all of them had been commissioned. I could have had the works published but chose not to do so as I then couldn't have done this. It was and is done on a personal level, I had never sought to raise it to being a political or moral statement (until now ), but then I guess when a very small cog in the wheel does these things it's of no importance to the cultural world or society in general?

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

prompted by the discussion above a search found this collection which looks more than interesting enough to share

http://www.onthecommons.org/magazine/our-new-ebook-sharing-revolution

apologies

[ahinton]

well i think that you should be able to make at least a living wage as a composer ... one of the consequences of our present arrangements for intellectual property is that Andrew LLoyd Webber is filthy rich .... whereas i think he should pay us for having to put up with his stuff

And in that particular case it might also be argued that there is no shortage of questions as to whose intellectual property is whose, ever since the lift from the finale of Brahms' violin concerto in [/I]Don't cry for me Argentina or possibly even earlier (one might forgive Jesus Christ and the Four Last Songs as mere coincidence but when such chance becomes habitual it's quite another matter).

[ahinton]

prompted by the discussion above a search found this collection which looks more than interesting enough to share

Can't seem to open that one, Cal; could you check the URL?

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

I don't think that any court would seriously consider any case in which "Andrew Lloyd Webber" and "intellectual" were featured in the same sentence.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

I have always supplied parts and scores to performers for nothing, or in paper days for the cost of the paper and postage if for many instruments. Nearly all of them had been commissioned. I could have had the works published but chose not to do so as I then couldn't have done this. It was and is done on a personal level, I had never sought to raise it to being a political or moral statement (until now ), but then I guess when a very small cog in the wheel does these things it's of no importance to the cultural world or society in general?

I think that this is a different instance from the one that RB raised, 'dgogger - if other people are needed for a work to be performed, then they have to be provided with the necessary materials - they shouldn't be expected to pay for them!

This matter has, to my surprise, depressed me more than it perhaps merits - I'm obviously out of step here; but it seems to me outrageous that composers do not receive even a modest income for the visual, notated representations of their Music - and at a time when the same technology that "enables" them to do so is simultaneously enabling visual artists to sell their work online, allowing them access to "royalties" previous generations could only dream about. Instead, Musicians seem to be quite happy to wander the streets of the internet hoping to give away the products of their work in the hope that this might ... well, I dunno. All very depressing - like Libraries and Museums being staffed by volunteers, what I think should be valued is instead merely tolerated, so long as it doesn't cost anything.

[teamsaint]

I don't think that any court would seriously consider any case in which "Andrew Lloyd Webber" and "intellectual" were featured in the same sentence.

Perhaps not.
I'm not sure how much faith mr L-W might have in the legal system anyway, given the material he was covering in his last show !!

No doubt he can still afford the best justice money can buy, though.

[ahinton]

Perhaps not.
I'm not sure how much faith mr L-W might have in the legal system anyway

Lord Lloyd Webber, please! - or "Lord Lloyd Loom", as a real English composer (no names, no pack drill) refers to him...

No doubt he can still afford the best justice money can buy, though.

No doubt indeed - though given the state of justice in Britain today, that "best" may yet not be good enough...

[hedgehog]

I think that this is a different instance from the one that RB raised, 'dgogger - if other people are needed for a work to be performed, then they have to be provided with the necessary materials - they shouldn't be expected to pay for them!

This matter has, to my surprise, depressed me more than it perhaps merits - I'm obviously out of step here; but it seems to me outrageous that composers do not receive even a modest income for the visual, notated representations of their Music - and at a time when the same technology that "enables" them to do so is simultaneously enabling visual artists to sell their work online, allowing them access to "royalties" previous generations could only dream about. Instead, Musicians seem to be quite happy to wander the streets of the internet hoping to give away the products of their work in the hope that this might ... well, I dunno. All very depressing - like Libraries and Museums being staffed by volunteers, what I think should be valued is instead merely tolerated, so long as it doesn't cost anything.

Well if anyone else wanted a score I'd give it to them too Ferney! Plus I've supplied libraries, music centres etc with scores. To be honest it's also rather wearying - the constant hawking of wares or otherwise having to supply scores to publishers which comply totally to their format, provide performing rights companies with all details of performances because they rarely catch most of them and oh don't be late because then they won't pay either and, oh, we only collect from that country if it is above a certain amount etc etc. It is, indeed depressing, I'd rather expend that energy talking to and rehearsing with musicians!

[Richard Barrett]

This matter has, to my surprise, depressed me more than it perhaps merits (...) Musicians seem to be quite happy to wander the streets of the internet hoping to give away the products of their work

I think that's an exaggeratedly downbeat view of things. You have to think (as I mentioned before) of the people who previously had no access to the work now being able to see and study it (and eventually maybe perform it). I would have appreciated such a thing enormously in my younger days. It's a bit like when printing was invented - there were no doubt people around who were horrified at the prospect that now books would cease to be something special and exclusive (and expensive), the centuries-old profession of scribe would cease to be a viable way to earn a living, and so on. As for making money out of sales and hire of scores and parts: when I was with a publisher I made a few hundred pounds a year out of this, to which I suppose ought to be added the time and expense I didn't have to put into reproducing the materials myself, posting them etc., but altogether it really isn't very much and I'm completely content to forgo it in the interests of making the stuff more widely available.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

I think that's an exaggeratedly downbeat view of things.

Well, of course it is! Like I said, I'm depressed - I haven't mastered upbeat depression yet!

And the printing simile occured to me too, and reminded me of

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pQHX-SjgQvQ

... although, of course, early printed books were more expensive because they were sold -- scribed books were usually exchanged without charge between monastries and/or universities. Which, I suppose, is the precedent I'll have to use to get my head around this new-fangled cyberwebby world that seems so alien to me.