# Did Copyright Kill Classical Music?



## AeolianStrains (Apr 4, 2018)

Relevant PDF: http://asuselj.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Leung-Spring-2014.pdf

The gist of the argument is that borrowing was not only extensive but instrumental in fostering connections between composers and the community. An important element of this borrowing was taking from folk music, the popular music of yesteryear. Had they been created today, many Classical masterpieces would likely have spawned numerous lawsuits by our hyper-litigious musical establishment, thereby casting them into oblivion.

The article goes into more detail, and there are additional nuances to note, but I encourage it to be read than explain it all here.

Thoughts?


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

I read the summary and conclusion, didn't bother too much with the rest. I don't agree. Traditional folk songs have no copyright. People are free to try to outdo Vaughan Williams with Greensleeves. If someone wrote a variations on a theme by Lady Gaga (I've seen a fugue of a tune by hers) it might get views on Youtube, but the music is so generic they might as well have come up with an original tune. People would prefer the Gaga original anyway, no matter how well done the variations are done. A much bigger reason why Classical music is unpopular is it is too complex for comfort for some listeners, or else with contemporary Classical is too inaccessible.


----------



## AeolianStrains (Apr 4, 2018)

Phil loves classical said:


> I read the summary and conclusion, didn't bother too much with the rest. I don't agree. Traditional folk songs have no copyright. People are free to try to outdo Vaughan Williams with Greensleeves. If someone wrote a variations on a theme by Lady Gaga (I've seen a fugue of a tune by hers) it might get views on Youtube, but the music is so generic they might as well have come up with an original tune. A much bigger reason why Classical music is unpopular is it is too complex for comfort for some listeners, or else with contemporary Classical is too inaccessible.


Like with all arguments, take it more as "did it contribute to the death of..." versus "was it the sole killer of..."

I didn't really want to get into defining Classical music or discussing the contemporary pulse, but I would say that John Williams and Hans Zimmer are analogous to Johann Strauss, and their music is still popular. Some symphony orchestras play video game orchestrations.

It's just much more difficult to do, and there's a stigma attached to it now, whereas there wasn't before.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

AeolianStrains said:


> Like with all arguments, take it more as "did it contribute to the death of..." versus "was it the sole killer of..."
> 
> I didn't really want to get into defining Classical music or discussing the contemporary pulse, but I would say that John Williams and Hans Zimmer are analogous to Johann Strauss, and their music is still popular. Some symphony orchestras play video game orchestrations.
> 
> It's just much more difficult to do, and there's a stigma attached to it now, whereas there wasn't before.


That's a good point. Film music (considered Classical by most) is now the most popular way for Classical to be heard, especially how it can connect with the viewers of the movie. Who doesn't like the Avengers' theme? Horner's Titanic Soundtrack is the best selling Classical album of last 25 years. Would it have been if it weren't for the movie, the visuals? It is more because it just happened to be there the right time, associating with the brand, rather than the quality of the music itself (which is pretty generic, even if well done).

Another thing is what attracts Classical music buyers are more performers than composers. The Three Tenors were also a best selling disc, as with Sarah Brightman, only a cross-over performer.


----------



## AeolianStrains (Apr 4, 2018)

Phil loves classical said:


> Another thing is what attracts Classical music buyers are more performers than composers. The Three Tenors were also a best selling disc, as with Sarah Brightman, only a cross-over performer.


Wasn't it always that way? The masses did love a virtuoso...

The rise of middle class luxuries play a part in the decline, for sure, but I wonder if there's not a point to be made in copyright.


----------



## MarkW (Feb 16, 2015)

Way too overblown -- both thesis and argument. (I also have serious quibbles with some of Phil's statements, but that's for another day. )


----------



## regenmusic (Oct 23, 2014)

Nothing can ever kill classical music.


----------



## Vasks (Dec 9, 2013)

I have no intention of reading the article. I'd rather deal with facts I know. The concept of copyright was rightfully created by composers to protect their intellectual property. It assures that anybody who would steal their material and suck off the due profits of the composers can be sued for their theft.

In America, we composers can thank the likes of Victor Herbert who fought for US copyright laws.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Vasks said:


> In America, we composers can thank the likes of Victor Herbert who fought for US copyright laws.


I don't know the history of copyright laws, but even earlier, in 1886, Richard Strauss was sued for appropriating an Italian composer's tune. He lost.


----------



## Vasks (Dec 9, 2013)

KenOC said:


> I don't know the history of copyright laws, but even earlier, in 1886, Richard Strauss was sued for appropriating an Italian composer's tune. He lost.


I don't profess to know its origins either, Ken. But I do about America's.


----------



## AeolianStrains (Apr 4, 2018)

Vasks said:


> I don't profess to know its origins either, Ken. But I do about America's.


America's original copyright wasn't necessarily bad. I do think its application is too extreme. There's a world of difference between selling someone's song outright and using someone's melody in a brand new way. Today, however, we've moved to extreme ends so that "similar sounds" can be infringement.


----------



## MarkW (Feb 16, 2015)

The number of notes in the traditional scale, the number of ways to put them togetherconsonantly (i.e. hum-ably) and the general "rules" of tonal music, mean that there are a far more limited number of simple melodies or themes one can come up with independently and a far greater likelihood of two people inventing the same melody than of two writers coming up with "Call me Ishmael." Copyright law says that you can't copyright an idea, only its expression.


----------



## Vasks (Dec 9, 2013)

AeolianStrains said:


> There's a world of difference between selling someone's song outright and using someone's melody in a brand new way.


I understand your sentiment, but that concept is still not right. For example there was a hit song in the 1940's "Full Moon and Empty Arms" that used a big tune from Rachmaninoff's 2nd piano concerto. Hit songs generate lots of $$$. Why shouldn't Rach &/or his heirs benefit from its profits?


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

That was one long article. Borrowing, cribbing, or whatever did not kill classical. Today, as it has always happened, composers come up with some new idea in sound quality - orchestration to make it simple - that some other composer hears and is enchanted by, then finds out how it was done and uses it in his/her own composition. One of the reason that it is impossible to identify the composer of so much modern music. Same thing happened in the 19th c - lots of wanna be composers borrowed orchestral details from Tchaikovsky for example. They could emulate the how, but did have his genius to know why some things were the way they were.

What I deeply loathe are those composers who write music on the bones of a masterwork by some dead composer and then have the audacity to claim copyright (yes, it's legal, since it's a new arrangement). Such as: Berio's Sinfonia trashing the second movement of Mahler's Resurrection Symphony. 

And it sickens me when some pop singer like Barry Manilow has HIS name as the song writer for the song Could it be Magic? whose tune was really by Chopin. In this age of demanding reparations, Manilow should have contributed much of the royalties to the Chopin Institute.


----------



## AeolianStrains (Apr 4, 2018)

Vasks said:


> I understand your sentiment, but that concept is still not right. For example there was a hit song in the 1940's "Full Moon and Empty Arms" that used a big tune from Rachmaninoff's 2nd piano concerto. Hit songs generate lots of $$$. Why shouldn't Rach &/or his heirs benefit from its profits?


I disagree. The piece has been transformed so much that it's entirely new. Did Rachmaninov pay out for the Paganini Rhapsody, even as his publisher tried to stop others from using Paganini's original motif?


----------



## Vasks (Dec 9, 2013)

Your example by today's much stringent measures is irrelevant. There has always been a time limit to copyrights. The duration was much shorter the further back in time you go. Paganini and his immediate heirs were long dead before Rachmaninoff used his theme or Tchaikovsky used a Mozart theme or Brahms also a Paganini theme, etc. Once a piece becomes public domain, anybody can use the music freely. But until then, the purpose of copyrighted music is to give the composer and immediate heirs some just deserved compensation.

Anyone who complains about music being copyrighted, implies that the concept of intellectual property is worthless. It comes close to what I've seen people also complain about; namely having to pay good money for musicians. As if music as a whole is not worthy of spending money for. As if Art should be free.


----------



## AeolianStrains (Apr 4, 2018)

Vasks said:


> Your example by today's much stringent measures is irrelevant. There has always been a time limit to copyrights. The duration was much shorter the further back in time you go. Paganini and his immediate heirs were long dead before Rachmaninoff used his theme or Tchaikovsky used a Mozart theme or Brahms also a Paganini theme, etc. Once a piece becomes public domain, anybody can use the music freely. But until then, the purpose of copyrighted music is to give the composer and immediate heirs some just deserved compensation.
> 
> Anyone who complains about music being copyrighted, implies that the concept of intellectual property is worthless. It comes close to what I've seen people also complain about; namely having to pay good money for musicians. As if music as a whole is not worthy of spending money for. As if Art should be free.


Please, drop the moralistic strawman. I can tell this topic angers you, but keep it to the topic at least without putting words into posts that aren't there.


----------



## Schoenberg (Oct 15, 2018)

Vasks said:


> Your example by today's much stringent measures is irrelevant. There has always been a time limit to copyrights. The duration was much shorter the further back in time you go. Paganini and his immediate heirs were long dead before Rachmaninoff used his theme or Tchaikovsky used a Mozart theme or Brahms also a Paganini theme, etc. Once a piece becomes public domain, anybody can use the music freely. But until then, the purpose of copyrighted music is to give the composer and immediate heirs some just deserved compensation.
> 
> Anyone who complains about music being copyrighted, implies that the concept of intellectual property is worthless. It comes close to what I've seen people also complain about; namely having to pay good money for musicians. As if music as a whole is not worthy of spending money for. As if Art should be free.


If a composer is composing just for the money (the only benefit to the composer that copyright provides), they are not a true artist and thus I have no respect for them.

"As an artist, you do not rake in a million marks without performing some sacrifice on the altar of Art,"

--Franz Liszt

"Those who compose because they want to please others, and have audiences in mind, are not real artists. They are not the kind of men who are driven to say something whether or not there exists one person who likes it, even if they themselves dislike it. They are not creators who must open the valves in order to relieve the interior pressure of a creation ready to be born. They are merely more or less skillful entertainers who would renounce composing if they could not find listeners."

--Schoenberg


----------



## Vasks (Dec 9, 2013)

Schoenberg said:


> If a composer is composing just for the money (the only benefit to the composer that copyright provides), they are not a true artist and thus I have no respect for them.


What a joke! Professional composers have to eat and pay their bills. BTW, the topic is about copyright which is only about protecting the composer's intellectual property. Do you really have a problem with that?


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

This topic is a wonderful opportunity for virtue signaling! Let me think...OK.

Any composer who takes pay for his works is devaluing himself and his art. Real art is priceless, which means without price, which means, you know, free. In fact, everything should be free! Then everybody can have everything they want all the time.


----------



## Schoenberg (Oct 15, 2018)

Vasks said:


> What a joke! Professional composers have to eat and pay their bills. BTW, the topic is about copyright which is only about protecting the composer's intellectual property. Do you really have a problem with that?


I have a problem with intellectual property even existing, as that implies that thought and knowledge can be private property which is fundamentally contrary to the ideals of freedom of thought and speech.


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

Schoenberg said:


> *I have a problem with intellectual property even existing*, as that implies that thought and knowledge can be private property which is fundamentally contrary to the ideals of freedom of thought and speech.


Have you really thought about that statement? Intellectual property is a far wider topic than music. It would include books, screenplays, poems, songs. It includes mathematical algorithms (yes, they can be copyrighted) for solving problems. All computer software is "intellectual property". That includes Windows, iOS, Chrome, Word, Excel, Safari, Photoshop...everything. I am very glad that we have intellectual property rights in the US, and that people are able to make money - sometimes extraordinary amounts - because of their hard work and brain power. We are all richer and benefit from the work of people whose private property should be protected and rewarded. There were certain political leaders in the 20th c who had similar beliefs you seem to have. There was a reason that the US and other western countries that allow freedom of thought did so well compared to the USSR and China - intellectual property was protected. Go get a copy of Ayn Rand's "Atlas Shrugged". Overly-long, dense, and outdated in many ways, but the big theme is still very, very relevant.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Schoenberg said:


> I have a problem with intellectual property even existing, as that implies that thought and knowledge can be private property which is fundamentally contrary to the ideals of freedom of thought and speech.


I would say that it is not contrary to freedom of thought and speech. Anyone is free to use the work for their own purposes, I can sing Gaga in the shower. But when I start reproducing it or passing as my own, I am infringing on Gaga, she didn't make that record so I can do that. Also I'm able to come up with my own smart phone that can do everything Apple does, provided I don't steal their technology. I can use any other means.


----------

