free here: http://www.learcenter.org/pdf/RTSSinnreichGluck.pdf


"An innovative musician was delayed for years from sharing his work
with the market, and in order to do so, he had to change it to make it
more derivative and less original. As we shall discuss in this paper,
such outright dysfunction is the norm, rather than the exception, in
the music industry today."
...
"In the fashion industry, sampling, derivation and reappropriation all
are accepted and common forms of creative innovation. Indeed, the
creative process today is almost wholly reliant on forms of reuse and
has deftly avoided the kind of fracas the music industry faces over
intellectual property protections."


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

Making no judgements about the end result or its artistic value, what instrument is it that this "innovative musician" plays?

I can see calling a mash-up creator a producer or engineer or maybe even artist.

But if you don't play the notes, you ain't a musician.

Dictionary.com defines musician as:
1.a person who makes music a profession, esp. as a performer of music.

2.any person, whether professional or not, skilled in music.

as well as...
3. someone who plays a musical instrument (as a profession)

4. artist who composes or conducts music as a profession

According to definition 1&2 a Mash-Up Creator could be defined as a musician. According to definition 3, a musician is someone who plays a musical instrument.

Now, According to dictionary.com a Musical Instrument is:
"any of various devices or contrivances that can be used to produce musical tones or sounds"

Turntables, Computers, etc. Produce musical tones or sounds.

Thus according to dictionary.com even the Mash-Up Creator isn't excluded as a musician. Which is good cuz I've never played a note in my life. God Forbid I get my musician status yanked from under me.

Is the record of the innovative artist copyrighted or not ?

I checked this guy tracks , heard one where he uses a led zep riff and song and he added lyrics and sounds in the hip hop way .
I still consider the led zep track was a creation and that this guy track is a new version of it not a creation at the same level .
I have a question about the lyrics and the rights .
Suppose you make a music copyright free and someone samples it and put lyrics with contents you are against ... what happens ?

Turntables, Computers, etc. do not produce sounds. They reproduce sounds. There's a difference.

Nothing personal, aflunky, but c'mon, be real. It's like calling yourself a cook because you nuked a TV dinner. If someone hadn't already produced something, you'd have nothing to work with.

"Suppose you make a music copyright free and someone samples it and put lyrics with contents you are against ... what happens ?"

If it's "copyright free" then nothing happens.

I don't entirely agree, although I too get offended when someone says they are a musician, and they don't play a "traditional" musical instrument( including drummers and vocalists who studied solfeggio).

On the other hand, Many people didn't consider Picasso and Pollock "artists".

Hey, if Herby Hancock wants to mash up samples, more power to him!.

a friend of mine who managed bands throughout the 60s-70s stated to Empire Day (we used to practice in his barn that we were not "True" musicians because we did not choose to play others music, but rather composers. I am a musician the band was everyone has their own definition
With re-mixes and Mashups... well I consider them more Artist using sound as their media, like a painter painting his rendition of the world.
if this is being done live and "preformed" he is a musician in that respect ..IF he plays some sort of instrument weather that be a drum machine or his vocals. if this is all just recordings he in no musician just an artist.
and there is nothing wrong with that.
damn to early to be in ramble mode

The paper Leflaw gave the link for this thread :
http://www.learcenter.org/pdf/RTSSinnreichGluck.pdf

is raising this problem :
This artist could'nt do his mash up album like he wanted because of copyright owners not giving authorizations to sample their music unless the result was mainstream music ... So it says this artist could'nt be innovative because it was impossible for him to use work done by others artists like he wanted ...

Is the problem the copyright itself or the narrow minded artists refusing authorizations ?

Copyright, Licencings, Publishing rights... meh

ya write a song about yer great uncle, the congression metal of honor respipiant, who served in WW2
cuz ya signed a contract Sony or one of the other giant corps own it, they then sell the right to cover it, remixed a bit, to an Anti-war protesting group of draft-dodging bitches
this is what and where copyright can be a good thing IF THE ARTIST owns it.

yes, pour yer heart into a song about the one that got away and then have megacorp use it to sell dogfood without even asking you...

yeah, I know Im a bit off topic... but if the system was built on artists owning copyrights and not megacorp then certain problems wouldnt be here

So should we consider anyone who uses a keyboard, per say, is not a true musician? Or what about a synthesizer? Or a synth Drum set? Damn, in this digital age, I'll be surprised if we find any musicians of your definition.

I went to a contemporary music concert .
No musicians , nobody on the stage , the music was played by a computer that was on a table with the sound engeneer behind the audience .
For me, we listened to music made by a musician even if it was only sounds/noises and no instruments were played ...

There are a lot of young people learning how to play classical music , jazz , and styles with instruments .
Electronic music , turntables ,are adding new ways to make music since around 1950 though (Ligeti , Stockhausen, Pierre henry ...)

Music Sucks Because of Copyright

I don't fully agree with this thought. Music doesn't suck because of copyright. Music sucks because greedy corporations have twisted the original intention of copyright laws by endless extending their lives through congressional lobbying and needlessly engaging in practices to monopolize the entire music market to the exclusion of independent musicians. That's why music sucks today.

I concur with George's sentiment that music is for musicians and listeners.

Anything that hinders either one ...
sucks.