Who writes the song?

[Rabid]

At what point do we move from composer to arranger?

---------------------------------

If you buy a CD of Acid loops or MIDI loops and use only those to create some music, who really writes the song?

If you use patterns that come with BFD along with an arp to create bass on Z3ta+, trance gate pads from a Vanguard preset, and a Rhino one note wonder to quickly throw together music, who writes the song?

If you enter a chord progression into a program like Jammer and tell it to auto create lead lines, and then record the output, who writes the song?

If you buy a program that randomly creates musical patterns, load that program on the computer and then record the output, who writes the song?

If you call up multi number one on a Korg Karma, hold middle C and record the output, who writes the song?

If I load 1000 tunes on my iPod, tell it to randomize, and then push buttons for play, stop and skip, who writes the songs?

---------------------------------

Where is that point between customer and developer that determines who creates the music and who only plays back music? Does it really fall with the copy write? If someone creates a nice melody on sax and releases it as an Acid loop, then someone else uses that loop as the core of a song, who really wrote the song?

Robert

Edit. Oops, make that a Korg Karma, not Korg Kaos.

[Meffy]

I'm the first to admit that trying to condense the answer to so complex a question -- or set of questions -- into two words will result in some inaccuracy. However, it's worth trying so here goes. *deep breath*

Barry Manilow.

You knew that was coming sooner or later, isn't it just as well it's done now? :-)

Meffy

[Meffy]

At what point do we move from composer to arranger?

Serious this time. As a first approximation, I think it begins when groups of notes rather than notes are being manipulated, and progresses from there as more composition is pre-made.

But I also find the distinction between composer and arranger fuzzy, much as the one between artist and craftsperson. :-) And as always, YMMV.

Meffy

P.S.: My 500th post -- balloons balloons balloons, no confetti yet, where are the balloons?

[Rabid]

I'm the first to admit that trying to condense the answer to so complex a question -- or set of questions -- into two words will result in some inaccuracy. However, it's worth trying so here goes. *deep breath*

Barry Manilow.

You knew that was coming sooner or later, isn't it just as well it's done now?

Meffy

LOL. You are correct. And you handled it like a pro.

Robert

[pHz]

interesting question rabid (and nice follow on from the 'instrument' thread) ...

... longer answer tomorrow i think but for now ...

... this is one of the issues that will (hopefully) be clarified over the next few years as the roles of consumer and producer become ever more blurred as far as music-making goes ...

... the element of 'creative choice' plays a major part though IMHO ...

prosumers ???

conducers ???

slainte rob

[Rabid]

I should have stated right off that there is no definitive answer. At least, not IMHO. But it does make you wonder. Here is my take.

Acid loops, MIDI patterns, arps and trance gate patterns are like studio musicians. They can make your music better, and they can inspire ideas just as real musicians can. Rely too much on real musicians then they will want their name on the credits. Using a collection of Acid drum loops is no worse than hiring a drummer.

If you buy an Acid loop CD and use only those loops, without edits, to create your song, then all you have done is produce a demo of that loop collection.

Somewhere between those two cases is the crossover point. Notice I said “without edits” in the second scenario. You can edit a loop of someone playing a scale and create a lot of songs.

Robert

[murphf]

In my view, contemporary music making boils down to making choices, and thus, to taste.

There is no need to be able to play an instrument and practice years for that, knowledge of music theory helps, but isn't decisive.

The "winners" (that is, those who are successful or are imitated a lot and therefore are trendsetting) are separated from the "losers" (those who are not) by the choices they make. Which riff do they keep and which one do they delete. Which, for example, snare or lead sound is used instead of another one.

In short, it is the taste and not the ability that matters. But maybe it has always been this way, except that ability in the sense of knowledge and virtuosity matters even less now.

[Rabid]

Interesting point you make murphf. What you are describing has historically been the producer’s role. Even back to Motown. You had one group writing songs, one group playing instruments, one group singing, and the master of it all producing hits by among other things, deciding what sounds good and what sounds bad. Computers and software have made us all producers to some extent.

Robert

[murphf]

I would say that to some point it was the producer's role, but it was also the songwriter's role, who decided, for instance, that the verse didn'y fit and had to be double tempo.

In any case, whose role it was isn't too interesting to me. What matters is how to move forward!

[Goldforce/Ohmforce]

the distinction between composer and arranger

The composer creates from scratch.

The arranger takes what is already created and alters it for whatever reason or gives body and form to it.

For example:
A beef stew.

The original person who made the recipe is the composer.

The arranger comes along, says "I like beef stew but I want to make it more to my families liking" and maybe cooks the beef a little longer, adds more pepper and also drops in a clove of thinly-sliced garlic.
He may then serve it along with hot garlic bread, in a bright red and white striped bowl.

Also, the arranger may simply take the joint of beef, the garlic, onions and pepper and cook several dishes from those ingredients, all quite different but essentially using the same elements, albeit done quite differently.

------------------------

[SuitcaseOfLizards]

I'm the first to admit that trying to condense the answer to so complex a question -- or set of questions -- into two words will result in some inaccuracy. However, it's worth trying so here goes. *deep breath*

Barry Manilow.

You knew that was coming sooner or later, isn't it just as well it's done now?

Meffy

aAAAAaaaaiiIIIIIiiiEEeeeeeeE!

*runs away screaming*

ps. I think Paul Anka wants you to have his baby

[Meffy]

ps. I think Paul Anka wants you to have his baby

!!! My turn to run away... :-D

Meffy

[shamann]

Barry Manilow!

(Since Meffy said it first, who wrote the joke?)

I'm not sure that it matters, really. Who made a Rodin sculpture, Rodin himself, the master overseer, or the stable of sculptors in his studio?

Who write Crystal Ship, Jim Morrison or the Doors, like the album credits said?

Ultimately ownership is often assigned through other channels. If I write software that creates random lyrics, have I then written all the lyrics the software creates, even if it is not done in my presence? You could argue yes, or you could argue no, the only certainty is the final product and the pending opportunity for a battle for alpha position. Lawyers are good at that sort of thing.

Ownership is a social construct, not something innate to any given creation. A child in a sandbox can shout "Mine, all mine" but without a social agreement to back it up, there is nothing stopping the next child from saying the same.

Cheers,
Steve

[Rabid]

...I'm not sure that it matters, really. ...

Well, it matters when people start claiming credit. Especially when people start collecting royalties.

Robert

[shamann]

Well, it matters when people start claiming credit. Especially when people start collecting royalties.

But that is a matter of what legal agreements existed prior to creation, and how those agreements have been transferred over the years, not who wrote the song. If you create royalty-free unrestricted samples, if someone then makes a number one hit obviously using your samples, you get nothing. Nada. Zip. Simply because you didn't get in writing. You can say you made that loop, but that doesn't entitle you to anything beyond.

Many people and corporations collect royalties on music they had absolutely no involvement in, just because a legal contract exists that entitles them to it.

Last time I checked, the Beatles were John, Paul, George and Ringo, not John, Paul, George, Ringo and Michael Jackson, and yet that final bloke owns all the rights to their songs. That's a social agreement, we have a system we've all bought into that protects Michael Jackson's ownership of the songs. But he had nothing to do with them.

Ownership is perhaps vital to maintaining the status quo in our society, but it certainly isn't a natural assumption. That's how the old songs, standards or traditonal jigs and reel, worked. That's how old blues musicians worked. Standards are the same social construct as loop CDS, they are content available for use in the public domain.

Cheers,
Steve