Re: Three poignant questions

wiley (
Mon, 08 Dec 1997 00:01:52 -0700

> 1/ each and every composer has the right to compose at least one
> masterpiece in her or his life; is that true?

Every person has a right to assert their skill and talents. Those rights are
infringed upon by many things, including one's self. But when you use the word
"Masterpiece" the question changes drastically. Masterpiece is a subjective term
(one person's Masterpiece is another's trash). I think a better way to word this
question is: Do all artist deserve time to work their artistic expression? and the
answer is yes. Plus, society at large benefits in unquantifiable ways when the
community is not only supporting the creation of art but also participating in its
proliferation. (i know that sounds 'way californian' but it does carry truths).

> 2/ we should not underestimate the quality of the so called Western
> classical music; is that true?

We should not underestimate the quality of any art form, period.

> 3/ the development of contemporary classical music (and art in general) in the
> Western world has been stalled by government/business bureaucracies; is that
> true?

My general response is: the "powers that be" can only stalled distribution. A
Composer is always working on developing his or her 'voice'. So short term
development goes on regardless of any outside influence, but long term development
happens when artists see, talk, show, discuss, and argue about each other's work.
and compared to a 100 years ago, the level of communication is much higher
nowadays. (this email as an example)

But if you asking weather government can 'censor' music or its development, I think
the answer is no, because of things like the web and small organizations that make
it their business to distribute and present emerging artists.

But I have avoided the issue of copywrite.

-----> tangent ------>

I wonder what this list thinks of copywrite? Is it a governmental berdin or a equal
standard of respect for fellow artist refereed by government?