YouTube videos with score

[Richard Barrett]

That merely confirms my view that YouTube is legalised piracy.

But calling it piracy isn't going to make it go away. It's now become the case that almost all recorded music has become available to almost everyone, and the question is what do we (musicians and/or listeners) do with this situation? I'm sure that similar kinds of objections were raised when printing was invented and suddenly it was possible for literacy and knowledge and literary culture to spread far wider than it had done before. At the same time it put professional scribes and copyists out of a job. What we're seeing is surely a comparable democratisation of culture, which brings with it the redundancy of certain "traditional" professions, in the case under discussion music publishing, which is now effectively over. For me this has meant a change between a publisher owning the results of my work, and nobody owning it. I think that can easily be seen as a step in the right direction. There remains the question of making a living, but as I've said before, I think it's more appropriate (as long as the concept of "earning a living" remains central to the way human beings live) to earn it by doing things than by owning things.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

But calling it piracy isn't going to make it go away. It's now become the case that almost all recorded music has become available to almost everyone, and the question is what do we (musicians and/or listeners) do with this situation? I'm sure that similar kinds of objections were raised when printing was invented and suddenly it was possible for literacy and knowledge and literary culture to spread far wider than it had done before. At the same time it put professional scribes and copyists out of a job. What we're seeing is surely a comparable democratisation of culture, which brings with it the redundancy of certain "traditional" professions, in the case under discussion music publishing, which is now effectively over. For me this has meant a change between a publisher owning the results of my work, and nobody owning it. I think that can easily be seen as a step in the right direction. There remains the question of making a living, but as I've said before, I think it's more appropriate (as long as the concept of "earning a living" remains central to the way human beings live) to earn it by doing things than by owning things.

Once YouTube (etc.) was allowed to happen, it was then very difficult to put the genie back into the box. But comparisons with people losing their livelihoods through advances in technology are not really the point. It's easy for some to look the other way and say it's fine for people to get as much free music on tap as they want.

"Go home and listen to this on YouTube" is a common suggestion, made weekly by choir directors. I wonder how long this can continue.

[Richard Barrett]

It's easy for some to look the other way and say it's fine for people to get as much free music on tap as they want.

I'm not looking the other way, I'm saying this is happening and we should find an optimistic way of dealing with it, instead of either ignoring it or sitting around complaining about it. How long can it continue? Until some environmental catastrophe makes it impossible to use computers, I suppose. But let's hope (and do what we can to ensure) that won't happen!

[Joseph K]

More John McLaughlin, a leisurely version of the blues 'Thelonius Melodius' -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ioH5FucQWuE

[Pulcinella]

Finzi: Dies natalis

https://youtu.be/hkHj1H7Av9M

[ahinton]

But calling it piracy isn't going to make it go away.

Not in and of itself, of course it won't - and one cannot turn back the clock, nor ought anyone to wish to do so - but...

It's now become the case that almost all recorded music has become available to almost everyone, and the question is what do we (musicians and/or listeners) do with this situation? I'm sure that similar kinds of objections were raised when printing was invented and suddenly it was possible for literacy and knowledge and literary culture to spread far wider than it had done before. At the same time it put professional scribes and copyists out of a job. What we're seeing is surely a comparable democratisation of culture, which brings with it the redundancy of certain "traditional" professions, in the case under discussion music publishing, which is now effectively over. For me this has meant a change between a publisher owning the results of my work, and nobody owning it. I think that can easily be seen as a step in the right direction. There remains the question of making a living, but as I've said before, I think it's more appropriate (as long as the concept of "earning a living" remains central to the way human beings live) to earn it by doing things than by owning things.

That's all very well but is it not the case that, where "a living" is concerned, a composer earning it "by doing things [rather] than by owning things" must entail his/her being paid for composing only and receiving nothing in respect of the intellectual property rights that generate royalties not only from publishing (which composers can do themselves these days anyway) but also from recordings, broadcasts and live performances? In other words, in such a scenario, a composer could only make a living solely from "doing things" if commissioned to do them with sufficient frequency and at sufficient amounts. But how many composers derive - and can expect to rely upon - even an amount equivalent to the average annual UK gross salary solely from commissions? More importantly, perhaps, what proportion of works composed today might you suppose are written to commission? Would you advocate a world in which the only music to be composed, performed and listened to be either written to commission or written by composers who are already sufficiently wealthy in their own rights to be able to afford to write without need or expectation of payment?

Whilst earning from doing - rather than from both doing and owning - might sound fine in principle, I don't see how it could be achieved in the field of music composition without immense sacrifices of music itself - unless music composition were to come to be regarded as a mere part-time activity of hobbyists other than in the cases of a very small number of composers who can actually afford to survive on commissions alone or who don't need the money in the first place.

This is indeed a predicament - I accept that - and the fact that it's arguably become a kind of unintended consequence of technological progress not only cannot be denied but is also not to be bemoaned; the answer to it is, I think, to ensure that streaming and such like generate some realistic funds for composers rather than the fractions of a centime that it does per stream at present. The sheer cost of preparation of MCPS/PRS statements that have to include hundreds, thousands or even tens of thousands of individual entries for streaming and such like must alone have become quite an administrative and financial headache for that organisation and for its sister ones in other countries.

[Joseph K]

John McLaughlin, Stella by Starlight -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jaSszVrn2Yg

[Joseph K]

Elliott Carter - Changes

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HK9-tSHqiFs

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

In preparation, perhaps, for next Saturday's BaL - Stravinsky's Mass, performed by the RIAS Kammerchor, with members of musikfabrik conducted by Daniel Reuss:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iRi_MDy_ks0

[Joseph K]

[teamsaint]

Rachmaninov Symphony no 1 . RCO, Ashkenazy.

[Joseph K]

Don't think Miles Davis wrote this, though...

[Joseph K]

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

- still my favourite piece by Finnissy; and one of the greatest Piano works written since the War.

(And I mean the War of the Austrian Succession.)

[Joseph K]

John McLaughlin in full-on rhythm changes post-bop mode:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9NblEQvb_54