> MarC <marc_contrib@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>: > > > I raise this issue because I'm starting a musical project and I would > > like to never release any work that could end like > > http://www.lokitorrent.com/ I've never before seen this website. Is this a joke? > > when the people shares it, I would like > > to use other musicians works (and I can't afford to pay them for such > > work now) and I would finally like to win fairly some money making > > good music (without this money I will never be able to buy decent > > instruments) How can you begin to even think of using other people's work, without paying royalties, and expect others not to use yours? > > > > is it an utopia? Yes, but you're joking, righ? Wolfgang Woehl <tito@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > How can anyone *own* music? By composing it and performing it only in his/her own bedroom/livingroom/basement etc., shut away from other people's ears. It's possible. > How did Bach do it? I think the question to ask is: did Bach own his music? What was the attitude towards music ownership in the Baroque era, anyways? I am not quite sure, although recently I started looking at these issues, but all I know is that a very common practice in those days was to copy other composers' scores in order to learn the craft, quote other composers, use similar compositional techniques/vocabulary as the masters, quote folk song, plainsong, etc. It has been proven that many of the compositions that were attributed to Bach, are not his, in fact. The famous Anna Magdalen Notebook contains pieces that are now known to be not of his but simply included in the collection which served as an 'instructional' book for keyboard playing. Also, for over 20 years Bach 'composed' weekly music for the church he was employed by. Not all of his music survived but it is also known that he has 'recycled' his own music for that purpose. Did Bach actually pondered the idea of ownership of his own music? I doubt it, since he make his pupils copy his scores. > How did Capitol Records > do it? through exploitation? > The only way to make that claim to some extent real were > technical limitations -- and those are gone for good. yes, but I think that certain attitude towards morality and respect could make such 'ownership' worthwile without the recourse to the measures record companies dispose of. However, that attitude is gone now, too. However, the following has ot be taken into consideration, of course: > Coming up with something like G-C-E7 is a complex process, sure ;) Hell, > make it Bbmaj9-Gm7-F/C-C-D/C. But do you really intend to say this is > yours? That you invented this, put it into the world, out of the blue? > Isolated from everything you've ever heard or experienced in your life? > Originality someone? What is that? I totally agree! I'm thinking, sometimes, that people are really trying hard to protect their work with 'intellectual property' labels in fear that someone else will use their ideas in a much more creative ways. Which has happened, of course, and history is our witness. > Share your stuff and you will get back more than you ever dreamed of. To > make money it is, in my experience, fairly promising to put your > family's estate to sensible use or, in the lack of an estate, work. yup, Charles Ives is famous not only for extensive use of polytonality but also for the fact that he was an insurance broker. Glen Gould is known to live off stock market. > The > clownesque, inspired, spiritual, grotesque, old-fashioned, great field > of making music will probably get you all *but* money. of course. Your agent, producer and distributor will make sure to get as much as they can. ./MiS
