Leaderboard

My last thought, which I'm giving, leaving, and not coming back to: One of my remixes is so far removed from the original that if you take away the original melody, because of the altered harmony and counterpoint, it sounds like a completely different piece. I've actually performed said remix without the original melody as an original composition for a graduate composition recital. An analysis of it shows that without the melody, the style, harmony, and counterpoint are so far removed from the original that it can classify as a completely different piece no matter how you look at it. I mean like...it's now less than 10% the speed of the original, the melody was almost completely reharmonized. The harmony doesn't even classify as tonal anymore at this point. It has a loose key center, so it's key centric, but the function of the chords don't exist in a traditionally tonal sense. If you speed it up 10x, then the groups of measures together suggest a tonal progression, but the actual phrases in the piece are not tonal. Basically I wrote a contrafact of the Underwater theme from Super Mario Bros. I'm a jazz musician, so the idea of taking several tunes with the exact same content and changing the melody is normal. The concept of contrafact is kind of a center point of the genre. Sometimes when people write a tune, the original writers fade into obscurity while the performers of said piece get credited. Donna Lee is credited to Miles Davis, but that is heavily debated. It is a contrafact of the tune Indiana, and is practiced as such. The chord changes to I Got Rhythm are so iconic that we just basically call them rhythm changes. There is no effort at all to hide the fact that it's basically the exact content of the song minus the melody. There are other times where tunes are arranged in DRASTICALLY different styles and although they are the original song, they contributed to the development of the genre, or in some cases multiple genres in a significant way. Many musicians do arrangements literally all the time to develop their compositional and arrangement technique. More times than not, doing an arrangement of a VG tune in the style of a composer helps me learn more about the writing of that composer than if I were writing an original tune in that style. It takes less time, so I can get more out of it really quickly. Brahms wrote Theme and Variations on a Theme by Haydn. But Brahms is credited as the composer, not the arranger. In the classical canon, having a theme and variations form virtually always results in a new piece, even though the melodic content was written by somebody else. Brahms, Mozart, Beethoven, and Strauss are some of the major composers in the classical canon, and they all wrote theme and variations on the themes of somebody else, yet are credited as the composers. Theme and Variations on a Theme by Haydn was basically a remix of a piece by Haydn. But Brahms is credited as composer. I mean if by added some seasoning you mean I dumped so many seasonings to it that it's basically a mountain of rainbow powder with no liquid left, then yes. I just added some seasoning of my own. That is a simplification of what goes on and you know it, so please drop the condescending attitude toward the matter, thank you very much. And please for the love of God don't do the thing where you quote each individual sentence of this post and make me defend it line by line, because I have better things to do with my time. People get tired of that REALLY quickly, because more times than not, you simplify what they said in your response, which just adds fuel to the fire rather than continuing the discussion. People waste so much more time correcting your simplifications than actually continuing the discussion because you "don't give a shit."

Not trying to say you're silly/dumb for caring about the topic and having strong feelings, Chris, but why can't you do it WITHOUT the needless hostility to everyone who disagrees with you on this? It's a subjective conversation by its nature.

sorry, i'm on the panel already, we're already in a Garpocalyptic Era of OCR. #feelsbadman

Bruh. He's offering to do the work you do on the panel for a whole month, without compensation. It's like offering to give you a vacation for free. Do it, it'd be hilarious. Until DjP got mad at us randomly trying to grant judge privileges behind his back, anyway.

this is a good way to say it. i got a few degrees in music that essentially nailed the coffin on ever doing it professionally simply because i hated it so much by the time i was done - the in-culture, the requirement to network constantly, and the number of good gigs going to someone because they knew a guy that knew a guy instead of going to the best choice (not that i ever was that) really was a turn-off. the actual music was fun, but doing it for a job was maybe 10% of that. then we had some kids, and my hours changed, and my priorities changed. success for me was providing for my family no matter the circumstances, and finding a way to pursue more than just one interest both from a financial and time standpoint. i think i've accomplished that pretty comfortably. it looks way different than what i thought it'd be in my early 20s, and that's probably for the better now that i know more about who i am and who i am not.

All I can say is it's pretty shocking how many of you seem to feel: "As long as it's got enough of my touch, it's mine." Even though John's examples of classical variations have the original composer's name in the title. I assume I can expect no legal action nor royalty payments to you if I copy one of the original tunes from your arrangements or pieces, then? Because after all, what with my variations to it and all, it will become uniquely mine now, right?