Too close to Influences, Copies ?

I think we all can pick a work and say "I wanna do something like that" but, how close you can get from that work you admire ?

Is not wrong to study an score and then try to do "something like that" is it ?

Here is an example:

Joan or Arc

from the soundtrack of "The Messenger, the story of Joan of Arc"

Music by Eric Serra.

It is obvious that Mr.Serra wanted to do something like "O Fortuna" (Orff's Carmina Burana). His music is not similar enough to argue plagiary, besides I'm not talking about law, this is more about the originality of a composer.

from different points of view, someone could even say that he could achieved the making a something "as good as" Orff's, someone else could say "sure, he just copied it".

My concern now is because I am having this issue myself:

Here is Prokofiev's Scythian Suite beginning:

Audio

Score

and here the beginning of the Overture for my first opera "The Tower of Babel":

Audio

Score

I am being honest here, I won't lie saying I wasn't thinking in Prokofiev's work, as you can see the music itself, (notes, chords etc) is no similar enough like in the case of E.Serra, only the "main idea" basically a rapid short start that gets repeated twice, a rallentando and then an slow martial theme.

Is it wrong what I'm doing here ? unprofessional ? unoriginal ?

It won't be problems with the following bars, only the part I mention is what worries me.

I'm thinking in changing the trombones in bar 9, sound very similar. Also edit the trumpets in 12, I'm not satify with those 16ths

I listened to opera and the score provided and compared it to the score and audio provided of the Prokofiev piece. I see nothing wrong with what you doing here. You didn't quite quote Prokofiev... nor did you 'steal' any of his material. Your work does have relation to his -remotely. That's not a bad thing, every composer starts with a foundation. Often, and I think the many works on this forum show this, that foundation is influenced by another. That's a normal thing - and you shouldn't worry yourself with it.

This is a perplexing topic.

Nothing you could ever write now will be 100% original — someone will always be able to compare it to someone else's work, closely or otherwise. Unless you invent a whole new paradigm using sounds that were impossible to produce before, there will always be a reference. So as long as you're not intentionally copying, who cares? Just write your stuff and leave the comparisons and whining to critics, that's their job.

As for Serra, I doubt he "wanted" to make it similar — most likely he had to work off of a temp track with O Fortuna on it and the directors pushed for him to stay as close to it as possible. That's very often the case. Composers for film who are accused of writing something too similar to another work very rarely do it because they want to or don't know better, it tends to be them trying to appease directors in love with their temp scores.

so, you as a person in the audience, you won't think something like "he just copied prokofiev" ?

I don't want people think like that (those who think )

Besides, I hate to re-write stuff, but I wanted to know before writing more...

Thanks Jason.

EDIT:

Marius, yeah I think you're right, early Bethooven sounds like mozart, early Brahms sounds like beethoven etc..

and bout E.Serra, you're probably right about the movie produces, i didn't think in that...

The problem of originality taken to its logical conclusion ends up making two assertions: 1) Nothing is original, 2) everything is original. A photocopy of Bach is original in that it's a new work. It's a new composition, even. Yet it's using Bach's work as the material. The difference between using a motive or a chord and using an entire score is simply scale, nothing else. What then decides what scale is "copy" and what scale is not?

Who decides that a chord isn't copying, but an entire piece is? If you think it's common sense, think carefully at the prospect that much like Duchamp's readymades, there are a thousand different things that can make a work of art have its own character and nuance beyond what the actual work is. Much like hype art, in a sense, the photocopy may be important precisely because it's just that, a photocopy. A photocopy that is posing a question we have yet to really be able to answer, and that in itself is something that can be called a completely different work than what actually is written on that photocopy.

And it goes much deeper than that, if you look at the consequence of that reasoning you end up with an inescapable layer of "originality" to absolutely everything you do. Again, what measure is then "unoriginal?"

From a thread a while back.

I wont worry about quotations, especially not when you are writing about a topic related to language, as Babel is.

And then, these aren't even quotations. You you write to a nice climax/martial theme, after a fast paced introduction; but who didn't? :D

I think it is no problem to copy the structure from a work and thus learn from it. I would compare this with saying you copied Prokofiev, because you use a comparable big orchestra...

Really, go on,

BTW: I love the introduction, are you going to post some pieces here. I really hope so!

Jaap

Oh wow. That Joan of Arc this IS plagiarism for all I'm concerned. The notes aren't the same, but the felling is exactly the same. Why not just use the original if that's all you wanted?

Yours again, very similar to the Prokofiev.

My thoughts on this are that if it is recognizable as construed from original material, its unoriginal. Maybe not plagiarism, but you did plagiarize his feeling. Let's call it creative plagiarism. Is it illegal? No. Is it unoriginal? Absolutely. Unprofessional? Well that depends on which industry your in. If you're in film, its perfectly fine, but in classical music? No way.

Oh wow. That Joan of Arc this IS plagiarism for all I'm concerned. The notes aren't the same, but the felling is exactly the same. Why not just use the original if that's all you wanted?

Yours again, very similar to the Prokofiev.

My thoughts on this are that if it is recognizable as construed from original material, its unoriginal. Maybe not plagiarism, but you did plagiarize his feeling. Let's call it creative plagiarism. Is it illegal? No. Is it unoriginal? Absolutely. Unprofessional? Well that depends on which industry your in. If you're in film, its perfectly fine, but in classical music? No way.

Ummm... I'm confused here, Justin. Many of your earlier works were outright copies of the Mahler's style. So are you saying that your early work is unprofessional and bordered on plagiarism? Again, I second what i said in my earlier post in this thread: every composer has at his/her root an influence that is evident in their earlier music. Look at any composer and view his/her early works - you will see a heavy influence of one or more composer on his/her work. That's just natural - nothing wrong with it at all. Now if that composer plagiarizes another... then absolutely your statements ALL make perfect sense.

My thoughts on this are that if it is recognizable as construed from original material, its unoriginal. Maybe not plagiarism, but you did plagiarize his feeling.

Wow so then all the thing with the baroque affects renders all of the baroque period unoriginal save for the very first that used them, according to your logic.

Oh btw, I have the patent on how to write sad music using major/Minor tonality. Just FYI.

Justin, no this is not film, and I don't care what Legal terms may say about it, I care more about other composers opinion like your's and above all, the effort could be removed from my work, like insinuating I didn't compose it, Prokofiev did....

YOu say Is plagary of the feeling, but, like other have said, isn't that already happended many times before ?

Jaap, I'm posting some pieces in Electronic just to create some activity... but if what you want to see is this heavy stuff well .... I hope to finish the overture in 1 or 2 weeks most, then I'll post it here (this time WITH SCORE hahaha, no pretexts now)

Jaap, I'm posting some pieces in Electronic just to create some activity... but if what you want to see is this heavy stuff well .... I hope to finish the overture in 1 or 2 weeks most, then I'll post it here (this time WITH SCORE hahaha, no pretexts now)

Looking forward to it, and I am very glad you want to share the score :)

The issue of originality is something I used to struggle with a lot. I think, for any maturing artist, you're going to experience ethical dilemmas and pieces that seem just a tad too inspired from other pieces. However, in about the last year or so, I've learned to simply stop caring; to stop making any sort of decisions based on whether someone else has or has not done something similar or even exactly the same before. To make any sort of aesthetic decision based on the actions or thoughts of another is to, to some extent, deny yourself of your own artistic choices. Now, I'm not saying that you can't have influences. In fact, I believe every sound you hear (whether it be in a formalized piece arranged by a human intelligence or simply a naturally occurring sound in nature) should and will be influential to some degree to a composer; even if that influence is a negative one (i.e. "I do *not* want to have my music sound like that.) I simply believe that, when you let your influences start to become more or less prominent in your own work based on the some notion of plagiarism or unoriginality, you're denying your own individuality.

Now, the problem I have with a lot of young composers is that they find one or two composers they really, really like then just attach themselves to them without ever really moving on; or, at best, listen to other composers who exist largely within the same time frame/musical aesthetic. I think composers should always be willing and even eager to explore new sounds and open their ears. And even if they find sounds that they don't initially care for, I think it's partly a composer's responsibility to understand A) why the sounds they don't like are happening and B) why it is exactly that they don't like the sounds they are hearing. I think that if a composer really makes an effort to branch out and absorb new sounds, the over-saturation of any one influence shouldn't be an issue.

However, say someone really loves Mozart. He makes an effort to listen to African tribal drum music and 20th century avant-garde electronic recordings and pop music on the radio today. And just none of it appeal to him at all the way Mozart does. So, naturally, he writes music almost exactly like Mozart. In fact, he even gets so into Mozart that sometimes, he just photocopies whole Mozart pieces and calls it pieces of his own. In this case, if someone has made an honest-to-goodness, legitimate effort to branch out and simply can't find anything that appeals to them beyond one or two composers; this being the music they just absolutely *adore* and nothing else then... sure. Go for it. If you love Mozart so much that you can't bear the thought of writing any music that isn't direct Mozart copies, then by all means. I think someone like that shouldn't really expect to ever gain much success or other people's interest in his/her music as who is going to want to listen to 'new' works that sound exactly like Mozart when they have the originals all in public domain and everything (though, you never know) but, if it makes the composers happy and satisfied to do this, then I see no reason not to.

... if it is recognizable as construed from original material, its unoriginal. Maybe not plagiarism, but you did plagiarize his feeling.

:laugh:

Plagiarized ... the feeling ??!!

Don't worry and simply compose your music. This could happen by accident, as well. Similar discussions on what is original and what isn't could be viewed as discussions on what to assign the label original or originality to. I personally don't need that anyway. Labels are just labels, they are not the stuff. :P

Well, to be fair, I agree with Tokke. It is blatant plagiarism. The ostinatos are similar. The instrumentation is largely the same. The choir melodies aren't quite the same but the treatment of the choir is. They both build up in quite the same way. Their climaxes are very similar. And they both completely suck.

Though, I honestly can't say I have much of a problem with plagiarism. So whatevs.

First, I must tell you, this is the first time I have this hesitation in writing or not writing something, I've made orchestral pieces before and I had no problems at all.

About the orchestra, I've been using this size for years, before even knowing about this Prokofiev suite (besides Orchestra sizes can't be "plagarized" or everyone would be guilty for that) (btw, mine is smaller)

Those who support me (Jason Jaap ...) I thank you, the others.... I know sometimes Justin seems to be "YC official negative waves Proclamer" but I'm trying to listening him too, Nirvana also has some good points.... What I understand here is that...

...when a direct link between the two works in question can be easily created, something's wrong there, is not about notes, chords, motifs etc, only a kinda mental linkage, an automatic rememberance of the other work (for those who know "the other work", of course).

I think the element that creates this problem is the "rallentando" or "ritardando" (bar 12-13), the 1-11 intro and the climax theme are ok (both are in 80BPM). I will try to construct a different transition between the intro and the theme, and I can almost guarantee the prokofiev "feeling" will be vanished (just think like you never saw this thread before)

(Justin, the D. Sutherland pic I like is a joke :D )

Well, to briefly expound on what I was saying before:

I guess I have sort of a 'communistic' view on music in that, I believe that no composer has entitlement to a certain sound or organization of sounds. Even if a composer were the first to utilize a sound in a composition, the minute its written down, it no longer becomes his/hers. It becomes part of a larger sound world. In reality, composers do not really create anything. We are not creators. We are organizers. We take what already exists and organize it in a manner in which we find pleasing. When I write a piece of music, I am not 'creating' a sound world all my own; a property of mine that is solely in my ownership. Rather, I'm borrowing elements and building blocks which belong to all of us (sounds) and constructing them in a way that I find personally desirable. That being said, I don't believe that when a composer organizes sounds, that organization suddenly becomes taboo in that it can never be used again. In today's day and age, it's foolish to even attempt a 'fully novel' organization of sound. Everything we write is going to bear some resemblance to a work in the past. That partly ties in with my belief that music does not progress in a linear fashion; at least, not anymore. Every piece exists as sort of a node of reference to each. Some comparisons can be drawn between any two pieces of music. But that's my post-modernism talking and an issue differently entirely.

So, all that being said, I don't mind plagiarism at all. In fact, there's almost an art to re-using and reconstructing organizations which have existed prior. Varese blatantly stole a passage from one of Schoenberg's Five Pieces for Orchestra as a recurring gesture in his own Ameriques but I don't think any less of Varese because of that. In fact, the fact that he uses it almost verbatim yet creates an entirely different context in function in which it's used I think has artistic merit of its own. While on the subject of Varese, he also blatantly plagiarized Stravinsky's Infernal Dance (I think that's the name) from The Firebird in the opening of Arcana; again though, I see nothing wrong with this. If anyone were to plagiarize my music (as unlike as that may be) and were to even gain substantially more attention from it than my original work, I would not be offended by this. In fact, I'd find it rather flattering that someone considered something of mine good enough to steal in the first place.

I dunno. I just don't see what the big deal is.

You're right, In Varese's America there are some parts that clearly resambles the Sacre du Printemps...

The big deal is this: (which isn't very "big" actually)

By seeing this, would you consider there was no efford at all to create those few bars ?

that anyone could do it just "copying" the Sythian ?

that it holds no "value" ?

that is not worthy by its own ?

I know it wasn't efforless at all, and that is surly worthy, but I wanted to know what guys like you (are in the music world) may think about it.

Give me a couple of days and I'll post the one with a different transition between start and theme.

I agree with Marius... as long as you are writing what you want and coming up with your own ideas, then it doesn't matter.

However, I don't think that you can't be 100% original.. Like say, A chord I once heard... I had never heard it before and haven't since. I am willing to admit there may be a piece with that chord, I just haven't found it.

If you aren't at least 60% original, then I think that you are copying instead of writing.

Er, Heckel, just because YOU haven't heard that chord before doesn't mean it doesn't exist elsewhere aplenty. It doesn't really count as "original," unless we're talking on a personal basis. Surely there must be something I haven't heard before which is a copy of a copy, etc.

Part of learning about music and getting a good education is to realize there is very very little that has not been said before.

The problem is we think this such a terrible thing - quite a change from centuries past when maintaining traditions and cultural legacies were highly valued.

I think the Joan of Arc bit was a wee bit too far in imitation. But I'm saying that as if I were the one in the composer's shoes, not as a statement as to what he should have done.

If I had been handed the scene with the temp track as "Carmina Burana" I would have had the choir, the ostinato, etc. However, I wouldn't have written so close to the original in terms of phrase length. As has been stated, though, no one here can know exactly what parameters were placed on the composer, and even then, my personal taste (which would be to be a bit less directly imitative) is my own.

Er, Heckel, just because YOU haven't heard that chord before doesn't mean it doesn't exist elsewhere aplenty.

I am willing to admit there may be a piece with that chord, I just haven't found it.

;)