Today, I wish to discuss the role of the Player, and the status of an Interpretation or of a Cover of a musical work. I am giving more precisions inside.
This is a rather wide question, so here are a few leads that you can follow (you are of course not supposed to study each and every aspect of the question, no need for a ridiculously long answer.)
- How much credit do you give to the player when hearing an unknown piece, i.e. when you don't already know who the composer is ?
- Do you think the creator's version is always the best ? Most of the time ? Rarely ?
- Who do you think "owns" a piece ? The original composer or the player/cover artist/conductor ? (if you have troubles answering this question, think about who you think would win a legal case, over copyright issues for example)
- Does this change when discussing a tradditional song (unknown author)/ an ostinato (most chaconnes or passaglias used the same ostinato) / a jazz standard (meant to be used by many people) ?
Note 1 : I am here obviously using the word "player" to designate the person executing a musical work, not the listening device
Note 2 : I know that this is a difficult topic, and that you are no music experts, so just do as you can, what's important is that you participate. If you need technical informations on musical stuff, ask me here or by e-amil, and I'll do my best to provide the infos.
Note 3 : There are different ways to show your own view of a work, so you may want to give different or comparative answers depending on whether you are talking about an instrument player, someone who did a cover of a song, or a conductor and the orchestra. And what an awful lot of typos I made o_o ... I'm sorry.
Players are involved in creating and/or performing music in a variety of genres. They can ne composers, instrumentalists or singers who perform either in the studio or before a live audience. Competition in the musical field is high and musicians need to dedicate hours of practice to maintain and develop their skill whatever their preferred style. In this case I think the creators version is always the best because they work hours to make things rights. Mbarga felicite.
However, I would argue that how long you work isn't always proportionnal to how good the result is.
What's more, I think that attaining top-class technical skills is only the base point : when there is an important competition, it is your sensibility and/or analytical skills that will make a difference. On top of that, the problem of technical difficulty is mostly (mostly!) found in academic music, where we rarely have a recording of the creator's version.
To my mind,I think that sometimes the creator's version is the best one . Indeed,sometimes people tend to arrange again the song by adding deep or high notes to the original song and that ruins all the work that the songwritter and the singer have done . Indeed,by adding some musical effest they took away all the melody . Indeed,for instance ,the song "Gold Digger" by Kanye West ft Jamie Foxx is totally the opposite of the song " I got a woman" by Ray Charles changing the jazz style into rap . Therefore,this cover took away all the authenticity of the original song . However,sometimes adding notes and effect make an old song a modern one like the song I quoted . Futhermore,I think that the one who owns a piece is the original composer who created on his own the melody,the beat,the tempo and who found all the arrangements . He is the one who managed to create a melody so I think that all the merits go to him . Moreover, I think that the piece is his and not the artist's , who just put his voice to the melody . Indeed,without the compositor's creation , there won't be any song . Farhati AHAMADA TS2
The problem of the ownership is really tough... However, to add to the discussion, I would point out that middle age/renaissance work is a proof that the composer's work is utterly useless without a good player : these works are so rarely recorded, that you can only find 1-2 versions on the Internet, and because these weren't good versions, I assmued that any pre-baroque european music was uninteresting. Much to my surprise, I recently heard some italian renaissance pieces on the radio, played by real good instrumentists : I liked it so much that it encouraged me to dig deeper in this era.
I am not saying, in any way, that the player is always more important in the creating process, just that there might be more to it.
I have never been very interested in music but I do believe that there should be different categories of music when talking about to who the credit for a piece of music goes too. For example most people would agree that if someone walked over to a piano and started playing Mozart beautifully, all the credit for creating that music goes to Mozart (although the player gets credit for being a skilled pianist), but if someone started playing a theme song from a tv series on their guitar, I don't think that anyone listening would think about giving any credit to the composer of that piece, even if he/she deserves it. To sum up, I'd say that tge amount of credit a composer gets depends on how famous they are, although the composer should get all the credit for creating a piece whilst a player should only get credit for interpreting the piece.
First of all, Nietzche said " Without music, life will be a mistake ". This fact shows how the music is important for humans. Today, most of the time, people who sing, players, are not the composers of the songs. So, what is the role of the player and the status of the interpret ?
To begin with, when you are listening a music, you know the player but not the composer if you are not really an expert in music. This fact is quite bad because they do most of the work but they are not as popular as the player. For example, René Angelil, who died yesterday, was a famous composer and composed for his wife, Céline Dion. The player is quite important for the media and to share feelings with people which is for me the music's aim. We can mention Adèle, who interprets her song hardly perfectly.
However, some players are also the composer and their works are generally remarkable. We can mention Daniel Balavoine, Jean-Jacques Goldman or Johnny Hallyday.
To talk about the remix, I think most of the time creator's versions are better because feelings are more strong. Nevertheless, some remix of 'quiet song'to 'strong song' can be a good contrast.
To conclude, music is essential in our life and all kind of music exist. Players and composers have both an aim and are important in the world of the music.
When I hear a tune I already know, even if it’s played by someone else, I recognize it and it reminds me of old sensations. I’m not able to notice differences since I’m not a musician, but I’d like to talk about the use of an existing music by a film director. To what extent does the film maker “create” new sensations with the same music, since in a film, it has a new “colour”, a new meaning? Stanley Kubrick chose Le Beau Danube Bleu by Johann Strauss during the sequence of the space shuttle going to the space station in 2001 A Space Odyssey (1968). When using this famous waltz, Kubrick adds several new ideas : the two space objects seem thus to unite and flitter like two dancers; this gives a human dimension to high tech objects. This waltz gives a new romantic dimension to science and technology. The slow movements of the two objects (this is not Star Wars !) create grace and poetry in space. The famous music is easily recognizable and gives majesty to the scene. When using but not altering the music, Kubrick reinterprets this music, gives it a new unexpected dimension. Strauss adds to the film and since then, this waltz is the symbol of all slow moving space shuttles.
I believe that most of the time the creator's piece of music is the best one. Indeed, it's hard to interpret songs like Michael Jackson's or even pieces of art like Mozart's. Even though they are two very different artists, I think the two of them are very talented and have a gift, the gift of music which isn't the case for everyone. When I first hear a piece of music, I give a lot of attention to the musician/singer because I'm happy to hear a new voice or a new instrument of an artist I don't already know. This is when I forge my own opinion and I believe this is the best part of listening to music. I think definitely the one who owns the song is the original composer. Indeed this song was inspired by some events/moments in the composer's life that no one else will understand and maybe he wrote this piece of music for a specific person. So even if the artist who interprets that song can be great, he will never, in my opinion, own the song. Then as I said in the beginning, the original creator of the song is, most of the time, the best. But there can be some amazing interpretations following the original version, like Veronic Dicker who right now is giving shows all around the world for her interpretations of different songs from several artists (Celine Dion, Edith Piaf...) and that doesn't mean she's better than the original singers, but just to show her respect and admiration to those who invented those amazing pieces of art.
Every piece of art is a source of inspiration for other artists. In fact some of the best pieces of art are known in the whole world and every people can recognize it. When a piece of art like a classical song from Mozart or Bach is played by a an other musician it can be good or bad but it will never be the same as the original. With that's said I'm definitely thinking that an original version is simply not better than a interpretation, first because tastes are differents and anybody will have his own perception about the cover, then I'm convinced that we just shouldn't compare the original version and the interpretation who are two differents songs. The song is both written the same way but it can be played on a different way. To answer about your third question, again I do not believe that we should compare those two differents notions. Of course the compositor owns the song he wrote but each cover of the song is a piece of art that you can hear just one time because it will be different every time it is played, like a theater scene. So I will end and say that the compositor owns his song just because it is him who wrote it and created it but the player who makes a cover actually owns the songs he plays during few minutes.
Good artists borrow. Great artists steal. Last year, a California federal jury delivered its own message to artists everywhere that inspiration can rise to copyright infringement. Robin Thicke and Pharell Williams have been ordered to pay $4 million in copyright damages plus profits attributable to infringement for having copied Marvin Gaye's 1977 hit "Got to Give It Up" in order to make one of the most profitable songs of this year : "blurred lines". So, what are the the limits of an interpretation or of a cover of a musical work?
First of all, I think the composer owns his song (that is why copyrights have been created), but everyone should be authorized to interpret it the way he wants, depending on his feelings and interpretation of the melody or lyrics of the song. In fact, art is popular and universal, but the author should have to agree with the arrangment. For instance, a painting cannot be copied and sold as an original one, but the painter can allow copies. Well, I think that is the same for music. Everyone has the right to creativity, but also the duty to respect the work of the others. (the question is harder when the singer is dead : who can say if a cover has respected or not the will of the artist?)
Secondly, I think the composer is as important as the singer and even more important, because a song can be interpreted by anyone but it only has one composer! Jean Jacques Goldman, Michel Berger or Sia for example have decided to compose for others and to be in the shadow of the success of their songs (even if they usually earn more money than the singers for the songs they compose!). But I also think that it is really important for a song to have covers and to be interpreted by many people. It shows that it gives different feelings, different reactions, interpretations and point of views, and that is the point of a song.
Finally, I think that, throughout history of music, we have learnt that a new style of music is always inspired and is always a mix of different older styles. Inspiration is necessary to creation. So, yes, composers can and even should be inspired by old songs, that is how it works and how it has always worked.
To conclude, I think composers have the most important role even if a song is always inspired by others and even if interpretations are necessary to keep the song alive and useful.
This is a rather wide question, so here are a few leads that you can follow (you are of course not supposed to study each and every aspect of the question, no need for a ridiculously long answer.)
ReplyDelete- How much credit do you give to the player when hearing an unknown piece, i.e. when you don't already know who the composer is ?
- Do you think the creator's version is always the best ? Most of the time ? Rarely ?
- Who do you think "owns" a piece ? The original composer or the player/cover artist/conductor ? (if you have troubles answering this question, think about who you think would win a legal case, over copyright issues for example)
- Does this change when discussing a tradditional song (unknown author)/ an ostinato (most chaconnes or passaglias used the same ostinato) / a jazz standard (meant to be used by many people) ?
Note 1 : I am here obviously using the word "player" to designate the person executing a musical work, not the listening device
Note 2 : I know that this is a difficult topic, and that you are no music experts, so just do as you can, what's important is that you participate. If you need technical informations on musical stuff, ask me here or by e-amil, and I'll do my best to provide the infos.
Note 3 : There are different ways to show your own view of a work, so you may want to give different or comparative answers depending on whether you are talking about an instrument player, someone who did a cover of a song, or a conductor and the orchestra.
DeleteAnd what an awful lot of typos I made o_o ... I'm sorry.
Players are involved in creating and/or performing music in a variety of genres. They can ne composers, instrumentalists or singers who perform either in the studio or before a live audience. Competition in the musical field is high and musicians need to dedicate hours of practice to maintain and develop their skill whatever their preferred style. In this case I think the creators version is always the best because they work hours to make things rights.
ReplyDeleteMbarga felicite.
However, I would argue that how long you work isn't always proportionnal to how good the result is.
DeleteWhat's more, I think that attaining top-class technical skills is only the base point : when there is an important competition, it is your sensibility and/or analytical skills that will make a difference.
On top of that, the problem of technical difficulty is mostly (mostly!) found in academic music, where we rarely have a recording of the creator's version.
Whatcha' think ? :)
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteTo my mind,I think that sometimes the creator's version is the best one . Indeed,sometimes people tend to arrange again the song by adding deep or high notes to the original song and that ruins all the work that the songwritter and the singer have done . Indeed,by adding some musical effest they took away all the melody . Indeed,for instance ,the song "Gold Digger" by Kanye West ft Jamie Foxx is totally the opposite of the song " I got a woman" by Ray Charles changing the jazz style into rap . Therefore,this cover took away all the authenticity of the original song . However,sometimes adding notes and effect make an old song a modern one like the song I quoted .
ReplyDeleteFuthermore,I think that the one who owns a piece is the original composer who created on his own the melody,the beat,the tempo and who found all the arrangements . He is the one who managed to create a melody so I think that all the merits go to him . Moreover, I think that the piece is his and not the artist's , who just put his voice to the melody . Indeed,without the compositor's creation , there won't be any song .
Farhati AHAMADA TS2
The problem of the ownership is really tough...
DeleteHowever, to add to the discussion, I would point out that middle age/renaissance work is a proof that the composer's work is utterly useless without a good player : these works are so rarely recorded, that you can only find 1-2 versions on the Internet, and because these weren't good versions, I assmued that any pre-baroque european music was uninteresting.
Much to my surprise, I recently heard some italian renaissance pieces on the radio, played by real good instrumentists : I liked it so much that it encouraged me to dig deeper in this era.
I am not saying, in any way, that the player is always more important in the creating process, just that there might be more to it.
I have never been very interested in music but I do believe that there should be different categories of music when talking about to who the credit for a piece of music goes too. For example most people would agree that if someone walked over to a piano and started playing Mozart beautifully, all the credit for creating that music goes to Mozart (although the player gets credit for being a skilled pianist), but if someone started playing a theme song from a tv series on their guitar, I don't think that anyone listening would think about giving any credit to the composer of that piece, even if he/she deserves it. To sum up, I'd say that tge amount of credit a composer gets depends on how famous they are, although the composer should get all the credit for creating a piece whilst a player should only get credit for interpreting the piece.
ReplyDeleteTo my ears, "I have never been very interested in music" translates to "I have not listened to John Williams, Murray Gold and J-P Rameau enough"
DeleteDo with that what you want ;)
First of all, Nietzche said " Without music, life will be a mistake ". This fact shows how the music is important for humans. Today, most of the time, people who sing, players, are not the composers of the songs. So, what is the role of the player and the status of the interpret ?
ReplyDeleteTo begin with, when you are listening a music, you know the player but not the composer if you are not really an expert in music. This fact is quite bad because they do most of the work but they are not as popular as the player. For example, René Angelil, who died yesterday, was a famous composer and composed for his wife, Céline Dion.
The player is quite important for the media and to share feelings with people which is for me the music's aim. We can mention Adèle, who interprets her song hardly perfectly.
However, some players are also the composer and their works are generally remarkable. We can mention Daniel Balavoine, Jean-Jacques Goldman or Johnny Hallyday.
To talk about the remix, I think most of the time creator's versions are better because feelings are more strong. Nevertheless, some remix of 'quiet song'to 'strong song' can be a good contrast.
To conclude, music is essential in our life and all kind of music exist. Players and composers have both an aim and are important in the world of the music.
When I hear a tune I already know, even if it’s played by someone else, I recognize it and it reminds me of old sensations. I’m not able to notice differences since I’m not a musician, but I’d like to talk about the use of an existing music by a film director. To what extent does the film maker “create” new sensations with the same music, since in a film, it has a new “colour”, a new meaning?
ReplyDeleteStanley Kubrick chose Le Beau Danube Bleu by Johann Strauss during the sequence of the space shuttle going to the space station in 2001 A Space Odyssey (1968).
When using this famous waltz, Kubrick adds several new ideas : the two space objects seem thus to unite and flitter like two dancers; this gives a human dimension to high tech objects. This waltz gives a new romantic dimension to science and technology. The slow movements of the two objects (this is not Star Wars !) create grace and poetry in space. The famous music is easily recognizable and gives majesty to the scene.
When using but not altering the music, Kubrick reinterprets this music, gives it a new unexpected dimension. Strauss adds to the film and since then, this waltz is the symbol of all slow moving space shuttles.
I believe that most of the time the creator's piece of music is the best one. Indeed, it's hard to interpret songs like Michael Jackson's or even pieces of art like Mozart's. Even though they are two very different artists, I think the two of them are very talented and have a gift, the gift of music which isn't the case for everyone.
ReplyDeleteWhen I first hear a piece of music, I give a lot of attention to the musician/singer because I'm happy to hear a new voice or a new instrument of an artist I don't already know. This is when I forge my own opinion and I believe this is the best part of listening to music.
I think definitely the one who owns the song is the original composer. Indeed this song was inspired by some events/moments in the composer's life that no one else will understand and maybe he wrote this piece of music for a specific person. So even if the artist who interprets that song can be great, he will never, in my opinion, own the song.
Then as I said in the beginning, the original creator of the song is, most of the time, the best. But there can be some amazing interpretations following the original version, like Veronic Dicker who right now is giving shows all around the world for her interpretations of different songs from several artists (Celine Dion, Edith Piaf...) and that doesn't mean she's better than the original singers, but just to show her respect and admiration to those who invented those amazing pieces of art.
Every piece of art is a source of inspiration for other artists. In fact some of the best pieces of art are known in the whole world and every people can recognize it. When a piece of art like a classical song from Mozart or Bach is played by a an other musician it can be good or bad but it will never be the same as the original. With that's said I'm definitely thinking that an original version is simply not better than a interpretation, first because tastes are differents and anybody will have his own perception about the cover, then I'm convinced that we just shouldn't compare the original version and the interpretation who are two differents songs. The song is both written the same way but it can be played on a different way.
ReplyDeleteTo answer about your third question, again I do not believe that we should compare those two differents notions. Of course the compositor owns the song he wrote but each cover of the song is a piece of art that you can hear just one time because it will be different every time it is played, like a theater scene. So I will end and say that the compositor owns his song just because it is him who wrote it and created it but the player who makes a cover actually owns the songs he plays during few minutes.
Good artists borrow. Great artists steal. Last year, a California federal jury delivered its own message to artists everywhere that inspiration can rise to copyright infringement. Robin Thicke and Pharell Williams have been ordered to pay $4 million in copyright damages plus profits attributable to infringement for having copied Marvin Gaye's 1977 hit "Got to Give It Up" in order to make one of the most profitable songs of this year : "blurred lines". So, what are the the limits of an interpretation or of a cover of a musical work?
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, I think the composer owns his song (that is why copyrights have been created), but everyone should be authorized to interpret it the way he wants, depending on his feelings and interpretation of the melody or lyrics of the song. In fact, art is popular and universal, but the author should have to agree with the arrangment. For instance, a painting cannot be copied and sold as an original one, but the painter can allow copies. Well, I think that is the same for music. Everyone has the right to creativity, but also the duty to respect the work of the others. (the question is harder when the singer is dead : who can say if a cover has respected or not the will of the artist?)
Secondly, I think the composer is as important as the singer and even more important, because a song can be interpreted by anyone but it only has one composer! Jean Jacques Goldman, Michel Berger or Sia for example have decided to compose for others and to be in the shadow of the success of their songs (even if they usually earn more money than the singers for the songs they compose!). But I also think that it is really important for a song to have covers and to be interpreted by many people. It shows that it gives different feelings, different reactions, interpretations and point of views, and that is the point of a song.
Finally, I think that, throughout history of music, we have learnt that a new style of music is always inspired and is always a mix of different older styles. Inspiration is necessary to creation. So, yes, composers can and even should be inspired by old songs, that is how it works and how it has always worked.
To conclude, I think composers have the most important role even if a song is always inspired by others and even if interpretations are necessary to keep the song alive and useful.