Oh, the irony

[Big T]

Mayby in the future it is like that, but not today, cause no matter how many times you enlargen a painting you can't get the whole original painting as collection of polygons cause if you enlargen it more than 2 times more, the painting seems more original.

I must admit, Jarno, that I have little to no idea what you are talking about here.

Unless you mistranslated "pigments" into "pixels" then into "polygons".

*Shrug*

 

[Ratty Sr.]

I must admit, Jarno, that I have little to no idea what you are talking about here.

Someone has trouble understanding Jarno? What a shocker. Newsflash - Jarno isn't a human being, but a bot with a faulty language processor. I thought we already established that.

 

[Tannhauser]

I thought he was just Finnish?

 

[ferdinand]

@ Sander
[quote="Sander]I call bullshit.
First of all, each version of a painting is a retelling of the same story, just as each replaying of a song the a new retelling is.
Once you record one of those retellings, as you do with a painting, you have a 'permanent record' of it. Once you start making exact copies, that still remains the case.[/quote]

Explain how a painting is a story, rather than, in some cases (which I presume you are refering to) a visual representation of one or more aspects of a story.

Furthermore, the permanence of a song is represented by the composition made by the composer(s), hence the composer can own the copyright to a song, as it is a composition.

And?

(Remember - the score is not the song. The performance of the score is the song.)

Also, your argument about flashbacks and storytelling techniques is moot, because those aren't copyrighted, only its specific implementations per book.
The same goes for music, you can't just copyright using time signatures, but you can copyright a piece of music where you use a time signature.

Read below what I've said to Luke.


@ Big T

Many pieces of visual art are stories.

Many songs are not. They are often just "pleasant sounds", just like the fact that some pieces of visual art are just "pretty pictures".

Wrong - as I said above, those piece of visual art are representations of one or more aspects of a story.
A typical story has, by its basic nature, an introduction, a complication, a resolution and an ending. A song has these components in a reletive form; intro, verse, chorus, outro, if you will. A painting does not. A painting cannot be a story.

If you view a painting as simply a collection of pigments attached to canvas/paper/whatever, ignoring any "story" inherent in it, then your argument works. But one could consider a piece of music to just be a collection of pigments on a sheet of music paper, a collection of grooves in a piece of vinyl or, at it's basic, unrecorded level, a collection of movements in a fluid medium.

I do not view a painting as simply an arrangement of points of colour. It is art, but it has no connection at all with music and literature, other than subject matter. You confuse "story" with "subject matter". Lastly, does your point that music may be view as vibrations within a medium or otherwise actually mean anything? Yes, they may be viewed in such a way. So?

@ Luke

So you're saying that no one should be able to copyright a story written in English either?

Music belongs to those who write it and perform it. Not some money-grabbing fucktard wearing a suit in an office.

Have I said you can't copywrite music? I've said that music belongs to the composers/performers of music - i.e. the authors. The idea that someone can own a song/story when they did not write it repulses me. I include performers, as they have the strongest, perhaps only claim to traditional/anonymous songs. Admittedly, maybe I should have said 'Music should belong...', as it an ideal I hold, not (sadly) the actual state of affairs.

According to your logic, a printed book would only be as a worthless reflection of a story, much like you compare sheet music to posters of the Mona Lisa.

Bullshit - read what I've said. I compare recordings of songs to posters of the Mona Lisa. Sheet music is the equivalent of written words.

Geez. Like Sander, I call bullshit. Do you seriously believe that various performance techniques and general music theory can be copyrighted, or are you just plain stupid? Assuming the latter, allow me to inform you that such things can not be copyrighted, and it is how you use them that is important, not 'that' you use them.

Obviously - but you have taken it out of context. It is the musicians preferance and use of techniques and styles that make up their personal sound, and the idea that someone could be sued for playing their personal sound because it is exactly that is, simply put, retarded. Yet that is exactly what has happened to John Fogerty, according to Cimmerian Nights' link. To use a more accurate allegory, it is as if an author has a perchant to using excessive amounts of adjectives. He publishs a few books, then changes publisher. He publishes a new book with the new publisher, and is sued by the old for writing like himself. Que? Put like that it's a idiotic scenario, yet it has happened.

Using time signatures in music works as a good comparison to using grammatically correct sentences in a book. Using a specific chord progression can be compared to using a special timeline in a book. Using a certain key can be compared to a setting in a book. Do you want me to continue?

Once more - bullshit. Time signature denote rythem and emphasis. They are the equivalent of iambic pentameter. I know its use in my first post was a poor one, and was a crude allegory. Insert later examples of themes in its place.
How on earth can a chord progression be compared with the timeline for a book? The timeline determines what happens when. How does a chord progression do the same for a song? I'm not sure if a chord progression has and equivanent in written works, and I'll have to think about it, but it sure as hell isn't the timeline. Put some thought in next time, please.
I'll presume by setting you mean a stage for the next section of the story to take part, like a house/car/street/etc. Bullshit, again. The key determines the feel of the song - it is like the mood of the book. Song starts off in the major, perhaps, - story is kinda happy -
But Wait! it changes to the relative minor - story now sad/uneasy, perhaps there has been a complication - then back in to the major - difficulty overcome - on so on and so forth, changing mood of song/story to suit.

Stealing for example a lead theme straight off, however, is and should be considered theft. That can be compared to copying a few key chapters from an already existing book and using without altering in your own. As a composer, I really think it would be stupid if one couldn't protect his music. And sure, I can get inspiration from anything I listen to, just as a writer can get inspiration from anything he reads - inspiration is a good thing. Stealing is bad, m'kay? Don't come talking about morals when you advocate legalizing theft, you intellectual property communist.

Idiot...

Where the hell did this come from? Be a mighty fine thing if you read before you posted. Would it help I put the next post in dot points with individual colors?

 

[Big T]

@ Big T

Many pieces of visual art are stories

Wrong - as I said above, those piece of visual art are representations of one or more aspects of a story.
A typical story has, by its basic nature, an introduction, a complication, a resolution and an ending. A song has these components in a reletive form; intro, verse, chorus, outro, if you will. A painting does not. A painting cannot be a story.

A story does not have to follow an exact formula - nor does a song.
It is nonsense to stipulate that a painting cannot be a story dues to it's stationary temporal nature - which I assume is what you are trying to say, I can read nothing else into your statement. (If I am incorrect, then please let me know what you meant.)

If you view a painting as simply a collection of pigments attached to canvas/paper/whatever, ignoring any "story" inherent in it, then your argument works. But one could consider a piece of music to just be a collection of pigments on a sheet of music paper, a collection of grooves in a piece of vinyl or, at it's basic, unrecorded level, a collection of movements in a fluid medium.

I do not view a painting as simply an arrangement of points of colour. It is art, but it has no connection at all with music and literature, other than subject matter. You confuse "story" with "subject matter". Lastly, does your point that music may be view as vibrations within a medium or otherwise actually mean anything? Yes, they may be viewed in such a way. So?

*bangs head with heel of hand*
I am trying to get you to realise that mediums other than the spoken word can contain stories, whether complete or partial, emotional or a simple reiteration of events.

A musical score with no words can tell a story, a single "snapshot" can tell a part of a story. Hells, if you include "comics" in the definition of visual art (which is where they belong - I'm not arguing about their cultural validity) they can tell an entire story with amazing fidelity.

What would you view as a complete story? Would it need to include every minute detail from the start to the finish?
The colour of the protagonist's underwear?
The full life history of every participant?
The political, economic and religious situations at the time of the story in the appropriate region?

Yes, I am being a pedant, but I am trying to stretch your distinction of "story" and "subject" to breaking point in the hope that you might see that it is just not valid.
One can tell a part of a story (or even several parts) effectively in a visual medium without trying to encompass the story in it's entirety, just as you can effectively only tell a pared down version of a story in song - even the old Norse Sagas missed out almost all of the details and their length is far in excess of what we would consider a song now.

 

[Tannhauser]

Idiot...

I have never seen someone in such a justified position to make comments like that.

 

[Lukus]

Once more - bullshit. Time signature denote rythem and emphasis.

I know my music theory, thank you very much (read my grade A in Music Theory from the Music Conservatory KJJ, Prague). Allow me to inform you that you are wrong and in no position what so ever to call bullshit on me when it comes to music theory, since you obviously know so little about the subject.

Time signature denotes neither rhythm or emphasis as you so confidently claim. Time signature specifies how many beats of a given note value there are in each following measure, and the duration of the notes is in turn stipulated by something called "tempo", but that's probably too advanced for you to comprehend. And hey, don't take my word for it, try to actually look something up for once (if you can)!

They are the equivalent of iambic pentameter.

No. A piece of music can be notated in any time signature without having to follow any particular pattern of emphasis. Sure, a 4/4 time signature usually has a certain feel, like in most pop music. However, it's not entirely crazy to compare time signature in music to time in a book; if you are writing a book that takes place in the 18th century you are at awesome liberty to do a great deal of things from that stipulated fact, and create different moods. Furthermore, rhythm is something completely different from time signature, but since you obviously know little to nothing about that to begin with, digging further seems quite fruitless.

How on earth can a chord progression be compared with the timeline for a book? The timeline determines what happens when. How does a chord progression do the same for a song?

Uh... Because the chord progression determines 'what happens when' harmonically in a song? How the harmony and thus the whole song theoretically evolves? No?

I'm not sure if a chord progression has and equivanent in written works, and I'll have to think about it, but it sure as hell isn't the timeline. Put some thought in next time, please.

That's so funny coming from you. I'll "put some thought in it" next time, if you'll only go and get yourself the shadow of the excrement of a clue.

Bullshit, again. The key determines the feel of the song - it is like the mood of the book.

Damn, just damn... That the key automatically determines the 'feel' of a song is a common misconception. Had you actually had any relevant knowledge what so ever in the subject, you would have known that it's not entirely uncommon for a song to be in a major key and still have a sad feel, and vice versa - OH MY GOD CAN IT BE?!!!. It's not like composers per automatique go "ok, now, I want this song to be sort of sad, so obviously it will be in minor". Then again, you obviously know nothing about the procedure or theory behind actually composing a song - at least not if one were to ask an academic like myself - so again, you wouldn't know, which pretty much sums up this whole debate.

Song starts off in the major, perhaps, - story is kinda happy -
But Wait! it changes to the relative minor - story now sad/uneasy, perhaps there has been a complication - then back in to the major - difficulty overcome - on so on and so forth, changing mood of song/story to suit.

While that is indeed a possible and not very unusual scenario - quite a likely one, in fact - in no way does it function as a general rule. The key determines what scale you have to work with to begin with when composing your song, and minor is usually associated with the more 'sad' feel of the scale, primarily the tonic-minor terse interval. However, as said, just because you're in a minor key doesn't mean that that song/part is sad, or that you can't create a merry mood with it. Also keep in mind that just because you're in a certain key there is no rule that says you can't use tones and chords not included in the given key.

Don't pretend to know when you don't have a clue. PUH-LEASE, get one or stop posting (although it would be moderately amusing to see you still try to claim that you are right and that I am wrong). Don't try to teach papa how to make babies.