On Dec 31, 2004, at 12:19 PM, John Howell wrote:
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.
I completely agree, and appreciate your sensitivity to my thoughts on this issue.
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?
Well, to me, Rodin was the creator, much like a composer is a creator. The ones casting it were the realizers, like the performers of a composition, though that might be a little too pat, perhaps a better comparison might be the one you were making; that the casting was more like an arrangement or orchestration. Yet, one would presume that every effort was made to keep Rodin's original concept intact, as much as was practical. Nobody "corrects" his human figures' big hands and feet, or makes their features less Roman in different communities; they are acting as good assistants and following the creator's "inspiration", as much as it can be ascertained.
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.
Hey, I'm a jazz musician. I know that terrific art can come about as a result of group efforts. I'm not saying that JW did not write great music because he uses assistants, I'm just saying that if he didn't do everything that makes it great, then he should not take all the credit (of course this is all hypothetical and I stand corrected on my quote at the top of this message, as it would appear that he DOES do most everything that makes it great, and his orchestrators are properly credited as such, which is what my original beef was.)
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.
Well, I wouldn't necessarily group shoes, shirts, furniture, etc., with painting, sculpture, and art music. Granted, a fair amount of craftsmanship is required for both ends, but the underlying philosophy differs. I suppose that concept ranks me as an old fart in the art world, but it is how I live my artistic life nonetheless.
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.
Like jazz.
I understand the group art concept; I just still like to keep separate (but not TOO separate) the craft and the art. I am not disparaging the former at all – I just like to keep clear in my head when it is that <I> am making the creative decisions, because those are the ones that make it art.
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.
I like his music too, but CHOOSING good music is a different job than WRITING good music. I understand that both skills are needed in the film world; all I am looking for is an honest credit of who actually did what, not who caused it to happen from someone else (although that is an important job, too.)
And I would like to share a humourous quote to end as well. This one from Woody Allen:
"If a work of art can be used to clean the oven, is it still art?"
This was discussed over many drinks for way too long when I was in university. 8-)
Christopher
_______________________________________________ Finale mailing list [email protected] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
