Nikita is actually on the same side as I am. Our interests here are absolutely the same. What caused this uproar between us is a psychological condition I am not professionally qualified to analyze, but one which can be easily understood as a severe inferiority complex, not allowing even the remote insinuation that under some conditions, his music may become/i> third rate. I was careful to qualify my statement, but that was not good enough. And of course, suggesting that other Russian composers may be a good substitution for third rate music, was too much for the guy to handle, particularly when he personally, has no use for these people. I have published a lot of music by many Russian composers over the last 18 years and it is no secret. For anyone one to throw garbage on composers I published, is an unacceptable insinuation of oneself into my business. I had enough trouble repelling attacks on my musical judgment for having published the music of Nikita Koshkin, publicly in print, privately in conversation and more lately, in several Internet forums. It is indeed sad that the phenomenon repeats itself in the opposite direction.
Anyway, back to the Little Prince: The problem is not so much in the way copyright is administered, but in the way composers are now expected to earn a living. In the era of patronage, there was little concern about copyright, because if a composer was a protege of this or that potentate or nobleman, no one would touch his music. Even today, when composers enjoy the protection of government agencies, foundations and universities, there is actually very little publishing that takes place. Most of the money earned by the big names in the music business is not from the sale of printed paper, but from the generation of mechanical royalties, the money paid by presenters and record labels for the licence to perform and record the music.
The guitar is different, because few guitar composers are supported by institutions. Not in the US and definitely not in Russia. So however meager the royalties for paper sales are, they become an important part of the composer's income.
The only way to change the system is indeed to establish a socialistic systems whereby composers would be supported by the government and would not have to worry about paying the rent and buing groceries. But we already know how that system worked in the Soviet Union.
BTW, I'd be happy to list you as friend in my LJ. But I need to know who you are.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2004-07-10 11:37 am (UTC)Anyway, back to the Little Prince: The problem is not so much in the way copyright is administered, but in the way composers are now expected to earn a living. In the era of patronage, there was little concern about copyright, because if a composer was a protege of this or that potentate or nobleman, no one would touch his music. Even today, when composers enjoy the protection of government agencies, foundations and universities, there is actually very little publishing that takes place. Most of the money earned by the big names in the music business is not from the sale of printed paper, but from the generation of mechanical royalties, the money paid by presenters and record labels for the licence to perform and record the music.
The guitar is different, because few guitar composers are supported by institutions. Not in the US and definitely not in Russia. So however meager the royalties for paper sales are, they become an important part of the composer's income.
The only way to change the system is indeed to establish a socialistic systems whereby composers would be supported by the government and would not have to worry about paying the rent and buing groceries. But we already know how that system worked in the Soviet Union.
BTW, I'd be happy to list you as friend in my LJ. But I need to know who you are.