Blog Post 10: November 19
I had no idea that recording copyrights were deemed to be ruled under common law and had no public domain date. This seems like a totally ridiculous notion that this is the best way to handle recording copyright laws. We are only hurting ourselves by making it "illegal" to use historical recordings, especially when some of them deal with our own history. Access to historical recordings should be easy and encouraged. If we are telling scholars that they cannot access historical recordings for research purposes, then what new research will be done? I sincerely hope that the ARSC and other organizations are able to get the copyright holders to understand the dilemma and reach an agreement. We need to find a way to fix this problem, or we run the risk of possibly losing large amounts of historical recordings entirely.
I am glad that Congress conducted a study on the effect of bringing pre 1972 sound recordings into the federal copyright system. It seems that based on the summary of their findings the deemed it to be a good idea. I did find it interesting that they would allow copyright holders to apply for an extension of protection provided that they make their recording available to the public for a reasonable cost.
I agree as much as anyone that performers need to get paid, but the proposed law in Tennessee seems to go a little too far. The way I read it the performers have complete protection, while consumers have no protection at all. Essentially every time you play a track it could count as a "public performance" and you would owe royalties. While I would say that this is a step in the right direction for getting compensation for performers, I believe that this is an issue that needs to be addressed at the federal level. Approving a law this radical in only one state will surely cause more issues than it solves.
The Belfer Audio Archive has a very cool collection of online audio files. I was very impressed with the large amount of subject matter it covered. I found a very cool and unique recording under saxophone music called The Bird and the Saxophone. It involves the music trading between someone whistling and someone playing the saxophone. The link for it is below.
http://digilib.syr.edu/cdm4/item_viewer.php?CISOROOT=/cylinder&CISOPTR=696&CISOBOX=1&REC=13
The National Jukebox collection also has a very cool collection of online audio files. I chuckled a little though when the first thing that popped up on the website was the warning that files could contain offensive or inappropriate language. I found an old recording under the yodeling category called Hi-le hi-lo. The link is below.
http://www.loc.gov/jukebox/recordings/detail/id/966/autoplay/true/
Wednesday, November 19, 2014
Wednesday, November 12, 2014
Blog Post 9: November 12
The introduction on analysis in Oxford Music Online presented a very interesting thought by stating that analysis is a form of criticism, or the construction of interpretations in order to make the work appreciated more. This is striking to me because I have never really considered analysis in this way before. Typically when I think of analysis it involved harmonic analysis and notating the chords that the composer used throughout the piece. While I do realize that this is a tool used to help better understand the music, I had never really thought of it as criticism before. I realize that criticism is one extreme of what analysis is, but I still find it to be an interesting thought.
I find it interesting that we do not know the exact origin of musical criticisms. Today I just expect to be able to read a criticism of almost anything new that comes out. Personally I always enjoy criticisms, even though they can be controversial at times. I think part of the reason I enjoy them is I like to compare what my own opinions to what they have to say. Honestly, if something gets a bad review it doesn't always entirely deter me from seeing or listening to that work myself. I think it is very healthy for many different opinions to exist on various subjects, and when these opinions are present it makes for great discourse. I also wonder, before The Times of London first appointed a professional musician as critic, who served as critic? It seems to me that the best possible option for a music critic would be a professionally trained musician.
I absolutely loved the article "Music Criticism has Degenerated Into Lifestyle Reporting." It perfectly summed up my frustrations with pop music and our culture in the recent years. There is very little new music released each year that I would consider to be quality music and I think it is impart due to this issue. By reporting on artist's lifestyles rather than actually critiquing the musical output, we are making consumers and listeners only care about an artist's way of life. We have created a culture where artists who flaunt money and live recklessly are popular, rather than artist who actually create something new and meaningful. I would love to see this issue fixed and go back to actual quality criticisms of new music.
The article "Please, Critics, Write About the Filmmaking" made me laugh a little. In the beginning of the article he pointed to Gioia's article about music criticism stating that he probably went a little too far, but it seemed to me that Seitz went just as far when complaining about filmmaking criticism. This article seemed to further my thoughts that criticisms need to be more in depth. Seitz's main argument was that critics need to know more about the filmmaking process, which I would totally agree with and say that music is the same way. To me this seems like an obvious truth, if you're going to write about something, you should probably know how it works. But, somehow we've strayed from this in our culture. Both authors presented great points and I would love to see their suggestions implemented in criticisms.
The Taruskin Challenge is an excellent project. I have often wondered what it would take to read through a work like the Oxford History of Western Music but these guys actually did it! I am very impressed at their dedication, and it seems like their project ended up being much larger than they expected. The plan they set forth did not seem too strenuous, 10 pages per day seems very reasonable. Perhaps it is worth a shot!
The introduction on analysis in Oxford Music Online presented a very interesting thought by stating that analysis is a form of criticism, or the construction of interpretations in order to make the work appreciated more. This is striking to me because I have never really considered analysis in this way before. Typically when I think of analysis it involved harmonic analysis and notating the chords that the composer used throughout the piece. While I do realize that this is a tool used to help better understand the music, I had never really thought of it as criticism before. I realize that criticism is one extreme of what analysis is, but I still find it to be an interesting thought.
I find it interesting that we do not know the exact origin of musical criticisms. Today I just expect to be able to read a criticism of almost anything new that comes out. Personally I always enjoy criticisms, even though they can be controversial at times. I think part of the reason I enjoy them is I like to compare what my own opinions to what they have to say. Honestly, if something gets a bad review it doesn't always entirely deter me from seeing or listening to that work myself. I think it is very healthy for many different opinions to exist on various subjects, and when these opinions are present it makes for great discourse. I also wonder, before The Times of London first appointed a professional musician as critic, who served as critic? It seems to me that the best possible option for a music critic would be a professionally trained musician.
I absolutely loved the article "Music Criticism has Degenerated Into Lifestyle Reporting." It perfectly summed up my frustrations with pop music and our culture in the recent years. There is very little new music released each year that I would consider to be quality music and I think it is impart due to this issue. By reporting on artist's lifestyles rather than actually critiquing the musical output, we are making consumers and listeners only care about an artist's way of life. We have created a culture where artists who flaunt money and live recklessly are popular, rather than artist who actually create something new and meaningful. I would love to see this issue fixed and go back to actual quality criticisms of new music.
The article "Please, Critics, Write About the Filmmaking" made me laugh a little. In the beginning of the article he pointed to Gioia's article about music criticism stating that he probably went a little too far, but it seemed to me that Seitz went just as far when complaining about filmmaking criticism. This article seemed to further my thoughts that criticisms need to be more in depth. Seitz's main argument was that critics need to know more about the filmmaking process, which I would totally agree with and say that music is the same way. To me this seems like an obvious truth, if you're going to write about something, you should probably know how it works. But, somehow we've strayed from this in our culture. Both authors presented great points and I would love to see their suggestions implemented in criticisms.
The Taruskin Challenge is an excellent project. I have often wondered what it would take to read through a work like the Oxford History of Western Music but these guys actually did it! I am very impressed at their dedication, and it seems like their project ended up being much larger than they expected. The plan they set forth did not seem too strenuous, 10 pages per day seems very reasonable. Perhaps it is worth a shot!
Wednesday, November 5, 2014
Blog Post 8: November 5
IMSLP is a very cool resource and it was fun to read about in the article. Two of the things that stood out to me the most are the copy-right laws they must follow and the fact that has been built and maintained entirely by its users. The copy-right laws it has to follow seems like it would be very complicated to keep up with. It would be a lot easier if it were only one set of laws but IMSLP must follow three separate countries copy-right laws. This means one composer's works may be considered public domain in one country, but not the others. I wouldn't be able to handle keeping up with that myself. I guess this is partly why Guo elected to shut down the site entirely in 2007. It is very impressive that IMSLP is maintained by users. I think this is part of what makes it so unique and has allowed for so many items to be posted on it. One user even submitted over 200 items! This seems like a great way to tap into people's private collections and get to see what exists today.
I found "The Spin Doctors of Early Music" to be very fascinating. Taruskin did a very good job of pointing out how we put on "historical" performances that are typically completely inaccurate. I did find it interesting though how he was seemingly criticizing people for putting on inaccurate historical performances, yet applauding them at the same time. While I always like the idea of a historical performance, I have come to the conclusion that I will never hear a Mozart composition exactly the way he would have heard it performed. It is just impossible to recreate. The line that stood out to me the most in the article was when Taruskin stated: "Being the true voice of ones time is ... roughly 40,000 as vital and important as being the assumed voice of history." Ultimately what I took away from this article is that we should perform these pieces to suit our own tastes. These works should be appreciated for what they are, but we should not be too wrapped up in the composer's intentions.
"Composers Intent? Get Over It" took the ideas stated in "The Spin Doctors of Early Music" and applied them to 20th serialist music. Kozinn had some interesting things to say and I was particularly struck by a comment he made about a certain interpretation of serialist music may make the tumblers tick for someone to begin to understand and enjoy that music. I had never really though of it this way. Personally I am not a huge fan of serialist music, but then maybe I am in that boat. Perhaps if I hear an interpretation of a piece that I like, then I will begin to appreciate serialist music more. (Honestly I had never really considered the fact that one could even interpret serialist music.) This is a very cool idea and I really liked what he had to say. Maybe all orchestra should start doing what the Berlin Philharmonic did when they came to Carnegie Hall and include at least one recent piece of music in their programs. This could please all audience members, with the inclusion of classic and new music, and introduce listeners to content they may have never heard before. This would be a fun experiment.
IMSLP is a very cool resource and it was fun to read about in the article. Two of the things that stood out to me the most are the copy-right laws they must follow and the fact that has been built and maintained entirely by its users. The copy-right laws it has to follow seems like it would be very complicated to keep up with. It would be a lot easier if it were only one set of laws but IMSLP must follow three separate countries copy-right laws. This means one composer's works may be considered public domain in one country, but not the others. I wouldn't be able to handle keeping up with that myself. I guess this is partly why Guo elected to shut down the site entirely in 2007. It is very impressive that IMSLP is maintained by users. I think this is part of what makes it so unique and has allowed for so many items to be posted on it. One user even submitted over 200 items! This seems like a great way to tap into people's private collections and get to see what exists today.
I found "The Spin Doctors of Early Music" to be very fascinating. Taruskin did a very good job of pointing out how we put on "historical" performances that are typically completely inaccurate. I did find it interesting though how he was seemingly criticizing people for putting on inaccurate historical performances, yet applauding them at the same time. While I always like the idea of a historical performance, I have come to the conclusion that I will never hear a Mozart composition exactly the way he would have heard it performed. It is just impossible to recreate. The line that stood out to me the most in the article was when Taruskin stated: "Being the true voice of ones time is ... roughly 40,000 as vital and important as being the assumed voice of history." Ultimately what I took away from this article is that we should perform these pieces to suit our own tastes. These works should be appreciated for what they are, but we should not be too wrapped up in the composer's intentions.
"Composers Intent? Get Over It" took the ideas stated in "The Spin Doctors of Early Music" and applied them to 20th serialist music. Kozinn had some interesting things to say and I was particularly struck by a comment he made about a certain interpretation of serialist music may make the tumblers tick for someone to begin to understand and enjoy that music. I had never really though of it this way. Personally I am not a huge fan of serialist music, but then maybe I am in that boat. Perhaps if I hear an interpretation of a piece that I like, then I will begin to appreciate serialist music more. (Honestly I had never really considered the fact that one could even interpret serialist music.) This is a very cool idea and I really liked what he had to say. Maybe all orchestra should start doing what the Berlin Philharmonic did when they came to Carnegie Hall and include at least one recent piece of music in their programs. This could please all audience members, with the inclusion of classic and new music, and introduce listeners to content they may have never heard before. This would be a fun experiment.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)