Re: Ethics of Altering Past Compositions

[Jacky Ligon wrote:]
>Joe, Kees and all,
>There is an important question I would like to ask you, with regard
>to your ideas about retuning Schoenberg (or any other composers for
>that matter).

>Do you not see any ethical (or moral) problems with altering the
>compositional intentions of the work of past composers (especially
>those so recently deceased)? Do you not feel that this kind of
>modification to other's compositions (whether public domain or not),
>represents a kind of "distortion" of the original intent of the
>composer?

Jacky, you didn't address this question directly to me, but my work,
as much as anyone's on this list, enters into this realm of modifying
("distorting") past works in ways that could not have been foreseen by
the original composers.

This issue came up quite intensely around the end of 1999; I can point
you to several exchanges more specifically if you're interested. I
think it's safe to say that the question will never be settled to
everyone's satisfaction, but my own perspective is this:

. It seems fair that any given work should be protected for some
reasonable period of time from any alteration(s) not approved by
the composer. Such a mechanism is already in place with existing
copyright laws. (at least, the original composer will be paid for
sales of any such modifications).

. Music, IMO, does not ultimately "belong" to the person who dreams
it up and writes it down. Everyone borrows from past works, and
everyone (whose music is worth anything) can expect to be borrowed
from, whether or not such borrowing is considered "distortion".

. A high percentage of derivations may be worthless junk, but (again
IMHO) we need not worry about degradation of great works, because
the junk eventually falls away; only good stuff lasts for decades
or centuries.

>One other thing too is this: If Schoenberg's intention was to attempt
>to avoid "tonality" within the pitch set of 12tET, then is it your
>intention to give Schoeny a tuning that would help him along the way,
>such as 13tET? Or is it your intention to re-tune his (or other's)
>music to an unintended "tonal" system, such as JI? It could be
>perceived by many, that to impose something onto another's work,
>which was not their intention could represent a kind of "trampling of
>the sacred".

My one and only standard is beauty, of necessity a highly personal
view. I really don't care a whit, ultimately, whether I'm in alignment
with or in direct opposition to the vision or wishes of the original
composer, IF the results are of equal or greater beauty to my ears.
I DO agree that I should not present my alterations as if they were
sanctioned by the original composer if they are not.

>Let me pose by analogy: What if you composed a piece of music in "X-
>Tuning", that you felt delivered the desired intention of the music,
>and less than a hundred years from now, some future microtonalist(s)
>came along and found your tuning theory to be ludicrous, and decided
>to make "improvements" to your work, by imposing their own subjective
>tuning views onto your compositions? How would you (or your ghost)
>view this kind of "hi-jacking"? When you compose new music, are you
>intending that others may be allowed to come along in the future and
>make alterations to the original intent of your music?

>Let me know if this is ok. When you guys have left for the big
>microtone in the sky, I've got some great ideas I'd like to try out
>on your midi files - of course - I'm unable to discuss these with
>the "living" victims at this time (although I have been wondering how
>Joe Monzo's work would sound with a "house beat", and tuned to a 8000
>tone non-octave scale). }: )

What greater compliment can there be than taking one's work for
modification? If it pleases you, by all means modify anything in sight.
Everything sorts itself out in the end.

This is, of course, a highly emotional subject, and many on this list
disagree strongly with my perspective. I will let them speak for
themselves.

JdL

--- In tuning@egroups.com, "John A. deLaubenfels" <jdl@a...> wrote:
> [Jacky Ligon wrote:]
> Do you not feel that this kind of
> >modification to other's compositions (whether public domain or
not),
> >represents a kind of "distortion" of the original intent of the
> >composer?
>
> Jacky, you didn't address this question directly to me, but my work,
> as much as anyone's on this list, enters into this realm of
modifying
> ("distorting") past works in ways that could not have been foreseen
by
> the original composers.

Your work stands as a pinnacle of excellence to me in the area of
midi files/tuning, but I do not see it as the same thing as re-tuning
Schoenberg. This becomes a much deeper philosophical undertaking.

>
> . Music, IMO, does not ultimately "belong" to the person who
dreams
> it up and writes it down. Everyone borrows from past works,
and
> everyone (whose music is worth anything) can expect to be
borrowed
> from, whether or not such borrowing is considered "distortion".

A very "collective" concept here!

>
> My one and only standard is beauty, of necessity a highly personal
> view. I really don't care a whit, ultimately, whether I'm in
alignment
> with or in direct opposition to the vision or wishes of the
original
> composer, IF the results are of equal or greater beauty to my ears.
> I DO agree that I should not present my alterations as if they were
> sanctioned by the original composer if they are not.

But surely you prefer to wait until the freshly dead composers have
grown cold, before the re-tuning begins! Has anyone thought of re-
tuning the "willing and the living"?

>
> What greater compliment can there be than taking one's work for
> modification? If it pleases you, by all means modify anything in
sight.
> Everything sorts itself out in the end.

If this were my area of interest, I would be prefer to be reverent to
the music of others, by not trying to impose something onto the music
that would be in direct opposition to the original intentions of the
composer, such as putting Schoenberg in JI or something of the sort
(especially where re-tuning may cause compositional "distortion").

>
> This is, of course, a highly emotional subject, and many on this
list
> disagree strongly with my perspective. I will let them speak for
> themselves.

Any discussion of music is fruitful.

Thanks,

Jacky Ligon

P.S. Please explain your use of the "springs" concept if it's not
allot of trouble.

[Jacky Ligon wrote:]
>>>Do you not feel that this kind of modification to other's
>>>compositions (whether public domain or not), represents a kind of
>>>"distortion" of the original intent of the composer?

[I wrote:]
>>Jacky, you didn't address this question directly to me, but my work,
>>as much as anyone's on this list, enters into this realm of modifying
>>("distorting") past works in ways that could not have been foreseen by
>>the original composers.

[Jacky:]
>Your work stands as a pinnacle of excellence to me in the area of
>midi files/tuning, but I do not see it as the same thing as re-tuning
>Schoenberg. This becomes a much deeper philosophical undertaking.

Well, I HAVE retuned Schoenberg, at Monzo's request; it's up in the
tuning files area.

[JdL:]
>> . Music, IMO, does not ultimately "belong" to the person who dreams
>> it up and writes it down. Everyone borrows from past works, and
>> everyone (whose music is worth anything) can expect to be borrowed
>> from, whether or not such borrowing is considered "distortion".

[Jacky:]
>A very "collective" concept here!

Yes, past a certain point.

[JdL:]
>>My one and only standard is beauty, of necessity a highly personal
>>view. I really don't care a whit, ultimately, whether I'm in
>>alignment with or in direct opposition to the vision or wishes of the
>>original composer, IF the results are of equal or greater beauty to my
>>ears.

[Jacky:]
>But surely you prefer to wait until the freshly dead composers have
>grown cold, before the re-tuning begins! Has anyone thought of re-
>tuning the "willing and the living"?

Sure - I'd be glad to retune the "willing and living". In fact, that
has happened, on a small scale: I've done some pieces by Herman Miller,
at his invitation. If someone is dead, even "freshly", and the
copyrights have run out, I consider the work fair game. I've got some
Shostakovich that's wonderful (IMHO), for example (and it's probably
"bootleg" from a copyright standpoint; plus, I've not heard back from
the guy who sequenced it whether it's ok with him if I share it).

[JdL:]
>>What greater compliment can there be than taking one's work for
>>modification? If it pleases you, by all means modify anything in
>>sight. Everything sorts itself out in the end.

[Jacky:]
>If this were my area of interest, I would be prefer to be reverent to
>the music of others, by not trying to impose something onto the music
>that would be in direct opposition to the original intentions of the
>composer, such as putting Schoenberg in JI or something of the sort
>(especially where re-tuning may cause compositional "distortion").

Reverence toward individuals is good in reasonable doses, but I reserve
my highest reverence for musical beauty, even if at the expense of the
wishes of individuals. Distortion may be horrible or sublime; it does
not wear a constant hue.

[Jacky:]
>P.S. Please explain your use of the "springs" concept if it's not
>allot of trouble.

Be glad to! Start with:

http://www.egroups.com/message/tuning/7890
http://www.egroups.com/message/tuning/12668

and let me know if you have more questions.

JdL