You may have never heard of me, but in a few small circles I am known as a concert pianist and a composer of contemporary music for piano. Since age 4 I have played as a solo pianist and as an orchestral pianist, but only for non-profit performances that benefit charities I prefer to encourage. Additionally, as an attorney and professor of law I have written and published two legal textbooks (under my legal name) and as a dilettante I also wrote and self-published four spy novels under a nome de plume in French. Finally, I have also painted in oils and acrylics, and mostly while traveling in the Far East for a few years, I exhibited most of the art still in my possession. http://artlacrosse.com
So when I candidly tell you how ambivalent I feel about today’s VOA article in the Arts & Entertainment Section by Jeff Lunden extolling the benefits of the American Society of Composers, Authors, and Publishers (ASCAP), you might be surprised. http://www.voanews.com/content/ascap-celebrates-100-years-of-protecting-composers/1848269.html After all, as an artist I should be sympathetic to other artists in need of compensation for their works.
While I practiced piano from an early age, I did so mostly in imitation of my mother and her little sister, my aunt, both of whom became accomplished concert pianists when I was very young. I loved music from the beginning and I played for hours daily out of adoration for my mother and aunt. When I first performed in Madison, Wisconsin, it was for holiday gatherings of our little city’s elite. That blossomed into more work, and by the time I attained teen age, I rebelled in favor of a very different lifestyle. Still, I continued to love music and taught myself to compose piano pieces, which a friend at the University of Wisconsin transcribed and arranged. It offered relief from pain in other parts of life, and I never expected to receive a cent for any of that work. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Schopenhauer’s_aesthetics If any proceeds flowed from my performances or compositions, I only wanted those benefits to go to local shelters.
The same feelings followed my writing of two textbooks for a large organization where I worked. I gladly signed over all copyrights to that organization, preferring to focus on better things than the business of publishing. After I became somewhat self-sufficient financially from the practice of law and military service, I played with novel writing and self-published four of my spy novels in the 90’s when spy novels seemed popular. I set up a trust to take any profits and donate them to designated charities that support young artists.
To me, composing, writing, and painting garnished my life of work in other fields. Hopefully, my music, words, and images also enriched the lives of a few others. To seek payment for that art somehow diminishes it, in my view. http://www.arthistoryunstuffed.com/kant-art-for-arts-sake/
Granted, some friends who also created art argued their need for income from their work, and I never disagreed with them. I simply went my own way.
So today when the Voice of America (VOA) recounted the ‘brilliant idea’ behind ASCAP, I cringed a little. Sure, let the famous entertainers take their bows and ample paychecks. The laws of Europe and America support those rights to payment for intellectual property expressed in art. Yet, something seems lost in that bargain, at least to me.
What do you think?
Jerome Hamilton, editing blogster at http://HamiltonFinanceServices.com where your comments are always invited
When you say: “Yet, something seems lost in that bargain, at least to me,” I’m interested in knowing what “you” think has been lost.
Freedom inherent in creative expression gets lost in the quest for sustenance and wealth, at least as I experience such freedom. As a young person opportunities to make money from musical performance opened to me, but the price would have been a form of enslavement. Even as a child, that freedom seemed ultimately more important than anything else.