On Thursday 01 July 2010 17:51:18 Joep L. Blom wrote: > drew Roberts wrote: > > Someone else having some thoughts on jazz and copyright: > > > > Are Bad Copyright Laws Killing Jazz And Harming Jazz Musicians? > > http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100615/0255059823.shtml > > > >> Joep > > > > all the best, > > > > drew > > Drew, > Thanks for your reaction but I disagree with the author of the reference > you gave me. I don't know enough about jazz to agree with you or the author, it is just something I cam across the other day andthen when you posted, I went back and searched for it to let you see it. > I think that if you use the original product as such, i.e. in samples, > borrows, remixes etc. you don't make original music, you use the skills > of others to make something and I am of the opinion that you have to > acknowledge, perhaps with money, perhaps otherwise, that you use the > product of someone else. In my opinion that is in the same vein as > plagiarism, I think you and I had a different read on the article then. Likely one of us or perhaps both have a misunderstanding. I took the article to be speaking (at least partly) to the case (at least in the US) of statutory or compulsory licenses which allow for covers to be done of published sheet music and / or of recorded songs. You can force a songwriter to give you a license at a set price even if they do not want to. *But* and here is where I think it hits jazz, you have to stick closely to the melody and the wording (I think that's how it goes, could someone who knows speak to this?) Since jazz (often?) involves improvisations on the melody you can't get a license unless the songwriter *wants* to give you one you are at a disadvantage legally. (This may make for more creativity due to the extra effort needed but I think this is what I got from the piece.) > A musician is a creator of sounds with his personal > characteristics. On piano e.g typical Oscar Peterson sound, originating > in his personal touch, technique (and musicality), cannot be copied by > another pianists, although most jazz-pianists (myself included) use > typical Peterson 'inventions' in our solos. That however is completely > different from using some sound-bites of Peterson's recordings and > mixing it, eventually with other sound-bites, and call it your own > music. That has - in my humble opinion - nothing to do with making > music. Every kid with some computer knowledge can do that nowadays but > no skills whatsoever is needed (other than understanding the manual of > the programs). > Luckily, as I wrote earlier, I ( and many of my colleagues and friends) > master our instruments and can create music, inventing new chords and > melodies. We use only the creative minds of composers (e.g. Gershwin, > Ellington, Bennie Green, Brad Meldow, to name a few younger > composers/performers) as basis to play and improvise upon. This is what I think the article was talking about and was saying is considered illegal. (if the works are still covered by copyright.) > But, as I said in my former mail, I'm of a different generation where > the acquisition of skills is most important for the production of music > and these skills have to be maintained every day again. > Sorry if this sounds a little as a rant. > Joep (Posted back to LAU due to the questions.) all the best, drew _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-user mailing list Linux-audio-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
