| |
lft
Registered: Jul 2007
Posts: 369 |
Release id #159269 : Fugue on a theme by D. M. Hanlon
Quoting Scarzix
Really nice. Lovely composition. but... what about:
- tune that covers someone else's composition, cannot be a procedural conversion of any kind - put some effort into process (quote from Jammer)
Yeah, clearly this is lacking in effort. =)
Of course this is up to the organisers, but I think there is historical precedent. Let's dig a little deeper, just for the fun of it. =)
At least among music scholars, a piece of music that quotes, references, or otherwise uses an existing melody as basis for variation, is generally considered a composition in its own right. Whereas if, to a large extent, the piece is recognisable as a new version of an old composition, it is termed a rearrangement or transcription (and we would call it a cover).
So, in publications of Max Reger's Variations and Fugue on a theme by Bach, Reger is listed as the composer. In publications of Bach's Fugue on a Theme by Corelli, Bach is listed as the composer.
Even Gounod's famous Ave Maria, where he added a melody to one of Bach's preludes, is considered a composition by Gounod, even though it is sometimes listed as a Bach-Gounod co-op (released 103 years after the death of one of the members of this dynamic duo).
But in contrast, Myra Hess' famous piano version of Jesu Bleibet..., even though a lot of creativity went into it, is a transcription, and the composer is given as Bach. Likewise, here Mozart merely rearranged Händel (zoom in on the cover). |
|
| |
lft
Registered: Jul 2007
Posts: 369 |
I forgot to draw any conclusions. The rule seems to be that if the large-scale structure is the same, but the details differ, then it is a cover. But if the details are the same, but they have been organised into a new large-scale structure, then it is regarded as a new composition. |
| |
CreaMD
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 3034 |
Brain food. |
| |
spider-j
Registered: Oct 2004
Posts: 444 |
Covers aren't forbidden in this compo anyway, or are they? |
| |
lft
Registered: Jul 2007
Posts: 369 |
Oh! You are right! The rule doesn't forbid covers. Covers are ok, but automated conversions are out. |
| |
Krill
Registered: Apr 2002
Posts: |
They are as of Jammer's no-covers addendum to the rules.
But i second lft here and cannot add much more to his list of references. :)
Except these Wikipedia quotes emphasizing that fugues can very well be compositions in their own right:
"It was in the Baroque period that the writing of fugues became central to composition, in part as a demonstration of compositional expertise."
"Das Schreiben einer Fuge galt zudem als Nachweis besonderer kompositorischer Fähigkeiten." |
| |
lft
Registered: Jul 2007
Posts: 369 |
Quoting KrillThey are as of Jammer's no-covers addendum to the rules.
The addendum is what's quoted in the top-post here, right? It can be read as: "Regarding tunes that cover someone else's composition, those tunes aren't allowed to be procedural conversions".
The rule was motivated by Poop Nukem 3D. Here, Jammer wrote:
Quoting JammerSo it's not really handmade cover, just plain convert from MIDI files or sth? I'm afraid that case might be somewhat problematic :P
Again implying that a handmade cover is ok, whereas the case of a plain convert is "problematic".
Jammer, did you want to rule out all covers or just the bad rips? |
| |
chatGPZ
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 11108 |
whats the problem with "automatic conversions" anyway? they usually sound like ass :) |
| |
Krill
Registered: Apr 2002
Posts: |
lft: Wherever the line is drawn here, i'm sure everybody agrees that your fugue is qualified more than enough to be regarded as a composition in its own right. :) |
| |
Krill
Registered: Apr 2002
Posts: |
Quote: whats the problem with "automatic conversions" anyway? they usually sound like ass :)
Valid point. Probably ranks so low in the end that it's not worth bothering with refining the rules for that. |
| |
Oswald
Registered: Apr 2002
Posts: 5017 |
love that Gounod piece. |
| |
Hein
Registered: Apr 2004
Posts: 933 |
Semantics discussions are lame intellectual games, they have nothing to do with music.
Found a good example online:
Why Cage is just like Bach
Bach- Is Bach
Handel- A more religious Bach
Mozart- A cuter younger Handel
Beethoven- An angsty Mozart
Chopin- A less angsty Beethoven
Tchaikovsky- Chopin plus Orchestra
Debussy- A relaxed Tchaikovsky
Ravel- Debussy plus Jazz
Gershwin- Ravel plus even more jazz
Joplin- Gershwin plus more America
Stravinsky- Joplin plus atonal
Ives- Stravinsky plus more messed up music
Cage- Ives minus the music
In my opinion, the artist creating the piece defines the rules. It don't matter in/out compo. Lft said he 'had fun making it'. That's what matters. |
| |
Jammer
Registered: Nov 2002
Posts: 1289 |
To cut the story short - fugue part after Druid hint is not your own composition? Production info doesn't say anything on that :P And, first of all, it doesn't say anything about procedural processing (if that's the case). If it's procedural but doesn't exactly cover anything note by note, I don't see any problem at all :D |
| |
chatGPZ
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 11108 |
now i am tempted to enter the compo with a procedural conversion of my own decomposition. |
| |
Scarzix
Registered: Aug 2010
Posts: 143 |
Cool, so covers can be done. I'll rest my case then, sorry for bringing it up. I got a few ideas now. |
| |
Jammer
Registered: Nov 2002
Posts: 1289 |
Reading comprehension says 'Hi!' :D |
| |
chatGPZ
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 11108 |
and hein forgot:
Wagner - is metal \m/ |
| |
lft
Registered: Jul 2007
Posts: 369 |
Quoting Jammerfugue part after Druid hint is not your own composition?
It is my own composition. I could have written "no copy" in the comment section, but I didn't feel that it was necessary. =)
Plenty of misunderstandings in this thread. It is interesting to try to figure out what everybody is thinking, based on their questions. |
| |
Jammer
Registered: Nov 2002
Posts: 1289 |
Happens when people skip the rules and start drama ;) |
