Re: Serial Past (Re: Tonal Future)

[Moshe Denburg <denburg...>]

Matthew Fields writes:
>I've heard extremely strongly felt opinions to the
>effect that composers are discoverers of "pre-existing works" first,
>creators of new works second (if at all).  I must admit to being
>thoroughly perplexed by the motivation behind this remark, but it
>seems to be an item of faith for some.  To me, it can only appear to
>be the philosophical underpinning behind most copyright infringement:
>the devaluing of the unique skills and labor of creators.

Some of the most flagrant 'infringers' of copyright have been composers 
themselves - Stravinsky is a good example. Of course, it is not that he 
wished to take away the credit or livelihood of the folk artists whose 
tunes he liked to use, but perhaps he recognized that working with 
'pre-existing' materials is what the act of composition is all about. 

I certainly agree that the labor of creators must be recognized in a 
tangible form, but do you consider copyright law, as it is presently 
formulated, to be the sine qua non of this recognition?

To me, the problem of composer-creator vs. composer-discoverer cannot be 
resolved unless one is willing to differentiate between the experiential 
mind and the analytical mind. Many composers, (I too read the posts on 
rec.music.compose) wish to equate the two. I do not believe this to be 
wise. 

Sincerely,

Moshe Denburg