Comments on: Down the Rabbit Hole of “Sidereus”

By: Dennis Bathory-Kitsz

Dennis Bathory-Kitsz — Tue, 28 Feb 2012 22:43:54 +0000

Only underlings are bound by “mutual respect”, I guess.

Dennis

By: zeno

zeno — Tue, 28 Feb 2012 16:47:47 +0000

“I don’t know about academia’s ethics”

“This course, like any other, is premised on mutual respect and honesty. More specifically, I expect that the work you submit is your own. Plagiarism will therefore be severely penalized: any work containing plagiarized material will be granted the grade of no credit and may subject you to prosecution before the …”

By: Dennis Bathory-Kitsz

Dennis Bathory-Kitsz — Tue, 28 Feb 2012 11:54:27 +0000

Reinaldo, if I’m not mistaken, this does happen in the science world all the time. The work of underlings is taken (particularly in academia), verified, and branded with the name of the boss/professor. And not just science. There isn’t even an agreement, as in the Sidereus deal. Work is owned by a corporation and issued under the name of its prestige scientist or taken from a graduate student and presented as a professor’s original work. I’m not sure what the ethics are here (corporate contracts often specify owning your work whether created during work or on off-hours; I don’t know about academia’s eithics, but as an editor of academic papers, I’ve seen it often enough).

So none of this is new. The question for me remains the orchestras, their expectations, and their contracts. And what will happen in the commissioning business from now on.

Dennis

By: Nick Norton

Nick Norton — Mon, 27 Feb 2012 20:29:35 +0000

Great essay, Garrett.

By: Reinaldo Moya

Reinaldo Moya — Mon, 27 Feb 2012 18:38:42 +0000

ARG, yet one more oversight here. The sentence should read like this: Let’s say for a moment that the wording in the commissioning contract was not very specific about the piece being an “original” work, isn’t it part of the job description of a composer to write exactly this: “original” works. We have names for all of the other things: arranger, orchestrator, transcriber.

By: Reinaldo Moya

Reinaldo Moya — Mon, 27 Feb 2012 18:35:06 +0000

Sorry, I’m agreeing with Dennis about the assessment of Sidereus. Just one last thing since I’m already posting again: Let’s say for a moment that may, isn’t it part of the job description of a composer to write “original” work? I keep thinking that if this had happened in the science world, and we had a scientist passing someone else’s research as his own, this behavior would not be tolerated and the consequences would be swift. Why is it allowed for a composer of that stature to do this? If a lesser-know composer were to to this exact same thing, he/she might find it hard to get work after this. With Mr. Golijov so many people are prone to shrug it off as part of his “modus operandi”. I believe this sends the wrong message.

By: Reinaldo Moya

Reinaldo Moya — Mon, 27 Feb 2012 17:49:32 +0000

What seems to be missing from the discussions about the appropriation of older music in a new composition is the idea of transformation. Even Alex Ross defends Golijov’s practice of taking someone else’s work and including it into his own work, by saying that there is a long tradition of appropriation in the history of Western Music. However, I doubt that anyone here would accuse Stravinsky or Bach of plagiarism. Both of these composers took liberally from others, but in the process of composition, there was a transformation of these raw materials into something unique and individual, thoroughly imbued with the personalities of each of the composers. What Golijov has done here is a graduate-student level orchestration exercise. Adding a few lugubrious chords at the opening and in the middle section does not constitute to me enough of a personal contribution in Golijov’s part for me to really consider this piece to be Golijov’s.

While I agree with Garrett’s point that Sidereus is not a very good piece, I don’t necessarily think that this is really the issue at hand here. We must all surely know commissioned pieces that have turned out to be less than stellar. Presenters and commissioning organizations are aware of the risks involved in commissioning a new work from a composer (it might not turn out be a good piece), but I do believe that they are at least entitled to have an original work, and at least as long as was originally agreed. As someone commented in one of the many conversations I have had about this issue: “If he was going to steal a piece, why not at least steal one that was long enough?”

By: William Neil

William Neil — Fri, 24 Feb 2012 15:45:51 +0000

It is unfortunate that celebrity trumps an inspired composition whomever the composer. Don’t worry, every comment and blog on this controversy will supercharge its target.

By: David P. Sartor

David P. Sartor — Fri, 24 Feb 2012 15:21:13 +0000

While I appreciate Lynn Job’s observation concerning the use of ghostwriters in celebrity autobiographies, it must be noted that even in this instance the end product is new and original material – whoever wrote it. A better parallel might be an autobiography which borrowed incidents from another autobiography and simply changed the names to the current subject. Even in Hollywood, where I know at least one composer who can’t read music but has “composed” Oscar-winning orchestral scores, the product is original. Apparently that obvious point was omitted from the contract for this commission, but I imagine it will be prominent in future commission contracts.

I do agree with my esteemed colleague Dennis Bathory-Kitsz, certainly a genius composer himself, that orchestral commissions are increasingly an insiders’ game. Although such an incident would be a career-killer for us mid-level composers, I am confident that Golijov’s career will suffer not at all. As I said on Facebook, “Composition is all about vision. For example, I envision Joan Tower’s scores with my name on them as the composer. That should be OK, right, since the overall artistic vision was mine?”

By: Dennis Bathory-Kitsz

Dennis Bathory-Kitsz — Fri, 24 Feb 2012 04:02:12 +0000

Eric, the ‘original material’ issue is always specified in calls for scores, competitions, etc., isn’t it? I’m sure we’ve all read those terms: No arrangements, no music already premiered, nothing published, written specifically for the competition or score call. And could it be that such terms were NOT in Golijov’s commission contracts? Please, someone from the orchestras step up with a copy of this contract!