At 9:24 AM -0500 12/31/04, Christopher Smith wrote:
Yet, and I'm sorry to say it this way, but commissioning work in a certain style does NOT make you the originator; the person who DOES the work is the originator. As much respect as I have for JW, this info diminishes him in my eyes. It pretty much reduces him to the role of a music editor who can write a melody.
[snip]
I wonder then if the photocopied sketches I saw, purportedly in his hand, were actually the work of one of his assistants?
Or perhaps he sketches himself for the important cues?
Christopher, thanks for starting this thread. I realize
that your questions and thoughts are very practical and directly
relate to the worth of your work and the recognition it deserves, but
this discussion is also touching on matters that are more
fundamentally philosophical--questions that are important in all the
arts.
Sometime in the early 1980s, my family and I were in D.C.
We read about an exhibit of the sculpture of Auguste Rodin at one of
the major galleries, and went to see it. (The discussion of his
work by the characters in Heinlein's "Stranger in a Strange Land"
has stuck in my mind since I first read them in the 1960s, and our
little kids were fascinated by the faces.) I was taken aback to
see, cast into one of the pieces, the notice "Copyright 1981
Auguste Rodin." The reason I was taken aback is that the
man died in 1917! Clearly that piece had been recently cast, and
clearly it was not cast by Rodin himself, so in what way was he the
creator of it?
This leads me to suggest that we are all probably suffering, to
one extent or another, from what I will call the "Beethoven
Syndrome." It's a notion that came along during the
Romantic period in music, and that did not really exist prior to
Beethoven's lifetime. Specifically, it's the notion that any
work of art is the result of "inspiration" and and therefore
MUST be the work of a single, "inspired" individual.
Christopher, you seem to be putting JW down simply because he does not
do every scrap of work himself, a clear case of "Beethoven
Syndrome" reasoning, but also a reflection of the way every one
of us was trained in the late 20th century.
Now the Rodin story illustrates rather clearly that the
"attelier" system of corporate creativity is still alive and
well in other arts. And it's tied into the ancient and rather
effective apprenticeship system that has served both arts and crafts
quite well for centuries. The Master sketches the basic design.
The Journeymen fill in the background details. Advanced
apprentices take care of the physical--the canvas, the stretchers,
mixing the paints, cleaning up after the skilled workers. And
probably the Master keeps his eye on the piece and fills in the final
details that transform just-another-painting into a unique work of
art. And this is also the system of corporate creativity that is
used in musical theater and in the movies, because it works and
because it multiplies what the Master can produce while still assuring
high quality. The mistake, if it is a mistake, is to compare
individual inspiration with assembly-line fabrication by relatively
unskilled laborers. The attelier system and the
Master-Apprentice relationship is a third path, more related to the
former than to the latter.
In the case of Rodin's sculpture, the Master again provides the
basic design, perhaps as a sketch on paper, perhaps in some other
way. (Not my field, so I'm extrapolating here!) Maybe he
prepares the molds, but I'll bet that's a job for the Journeymen in
the attelier. And who actually prepares and pours the bronze?
Again, probably the advanced Apprentices and not the Master. And
under this system yes, Rodin's estate can indeed claim copyright in
his "original" work that was not poured until approximately
66 years after his death!
This is how paintings were done. This is how sculpture was
done. This was how violins, and harpsichords, and lutes were
made. And shoes, and muskets, and swords, and shirts, and plows
and cabinets. This was how the arts worked, and they worked
awfully well. Composers pre-Beethoven didn't think of themselves
as "inspired artists," but as master craftsmen. And
one aspect of a master craftsman, as opposed to an "inspired
artist," is the ability to work well with others to create a
final product.
That is exactly what JW can do, and he does it well. No,
he's no Robert Schumann, who didn't need to study counterpoint or
orchestration because he was so "inspired." He's a
craftsman who understands the demands of 28 frames/second and the
sound of a bass flute and the emotional effects of his music and how
to get the most out of the associates he works with. It's easy
enough to find examples of older music that may have inspired some of
his motives or tunes, but as you point out, EVERYTHING is derivative
in some way. I prefer to listen to his music and marvel at how
it changes from one film to the next, so that every film is enhanced
in a way that is perfect for that film, that story, and that
director.
One of my students--an engineering student and a very good
musician--has an email sig that is mildly humorous, but gives you
something to think about:
To the optimist, the glass is half
full.
To the pessimist, the glass is half empty.
To the pessimist, the glass is half empty.
To the engineer, the glass is twice as big
as it needs to be.
John
--
John & Susie Howell
Virginia Tech Department of Music
Blacksburg, Virginia, U.S.A 24061-0240
Vox (540) 231-8411 Fax (540) 231-5034
(mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED])
http://www.music.vt.edu/faculty/howell/howell.html
Virginia Tech Department of Music
Blacksburg, Virginia, U.S.A 24061-0240
Vox (540) 231-8411 Fax (540) 231-5034
(mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED])
http://www.music.vt.edu/faculty/howell/howell.html
_______________________________________________ Finale mailing list [email protected] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
