November 3rd, 2008 by admin

Source:

Wegman, Rob C. “From Maker to Composer: Improvisation and Musical Authorship in

the Low Countries, 1450- 1500″ Journal of the American Musicological Society

49, 3 (Autumn, 1996): 409 -479.

In an attempt to navigate some kind of “beginning” to the idea of musical ownership, I have begun searching for information regarding Machaut; I remember being told that he was the first composer to sign his name on copies of his work. When searching for information supporting this, I stumbled across this source, and the title caught my attention. Although this source did not help my search for documentation of Machaut’s signed manuscripts, it did offer interesting insight into the idea of ownership and authorship in the middle ages. The main focus of the article is to compare the development of amateur music makers and designated composers in urban centers verses the rural low country between 1450 and 1500. The focus of the article is not strongly related to my research focus, however, the author does examine ideas of “authorship” in this era and offers important points that help establish the historical framework of copyright and ownership of musical works.

Wegman argues that the professionalization of the composer, and the cultural recognition of musical authorship in this time period stemmed from and perpetuated long-established modes of thought in both Urban and Rural settings. Wegman divides his defense of this statement into 7 categories, and it is categories 5, and 7, that I am most interested in.

Section 5 begins with an examination of the difference between “making” and “doing”, drawing attention to the Aristotelian distinction between making (poiesis) and doing (prax- is), and how the influence of Boethius’ writing at the time established an accepted view of music in this regard:

“To “make” is to produce a piece of work, an object, and sound is not an object but motion. It is fleeting, transitory, immaterial: sound cannot be made (factus) but only uttered (prolatus). To think of music as a “thing” is a paradox: things have permanence and spatial extension, and for sound this is unthinkable unless it is represented by ink on paper, thus assuming matter and form.” - pg. 439

I found this striking, as copyright law today is still based on this principle. Once a work is written down, the creator assumes full copyright to the work. However, if it is not written down, it is, as Wegman states, a fleeting thing, only gaining permanence by being written down.

Wegman goes on to examine the use of the word “make” and “composer”. At this point in history, the phrase “to make music” meant the same thing as “to compose music”. Why is this, and what complexity does this cultural tidbit reveal? In the footnotes, Wegman explains:

“Although writing, creating, and making are nowadays used inter- changeably as synonyms for composing, medievals were acutely conscious of the distinctions between them, and they carefully maintained these in written statements. “To create,” as Aquinas put it, is to “produce something out of nothing,” which only the Creator can. To make or to compose is to work on or put together material provided by nature, which is what the artist does. To write, finally, is to copy…” - pg. 440-441

In section 7, Wegman touches on the subject of authorship and societies view of such ideas at the time.

Wegman states that prior to the 1450-1500 era, ideologies of authorship had traditionally been foreign to medieval aesthetics. (pg. 457) This ideology of medieval culture is fascinating, as it is so different from the modern view of authorship and a right to ownership. Wegman summarizes medieval thought on the issue:

“The thought of a composer exercising authorial control over the performance and interpretation of his work was virtually unknown to late medieval musical culture: he provided only the “made thing,” a set of notational instructions “signifying” the performance. It was the performance that really mattered, that benefactors paid for-and generously-to be realized. The notated work itself, significantly, was not an economic commodity: it constituted freeware, copied widely so long as it was deemed useful, but discarded as soon as it had passed beyond its stylistic sell-by date.” - pg. 460

As the world today revolves around financial pursuits, it is hard to imagine a society where ownership was not the primary focus of the composer. What could one possibly have to gain from composing, why even bother, if time spent would not guarantee food or water? Wegman explains:

“What incentives were there to compose, when there was so little direct encouragement or pressure coming from society? The answer lies precisely in the effects listed by Tinctoris: music pleases God, adorns his praises, chases away the devil, exalts to ecstacy or pious contemplation, banishes melancholy, softens a hard heart, cures those who are ill, adds to the pleasure of a banquet, and many other things. That, in a sense, was all the incentive medieval composers would have needed-even if their “making” alone brought no financial rewards, let alone secured them a livelihood.” - pg. 461

It is always said that Western Art music is inarguably linked to the church; this quote demonstrates how strong that bond was in medieval times. As a result, ideals of ownership, authorship, and copyright really were not of primary importance, if they were even thought of at all. The ultimate goal of most medieval composers was the glory of God…and in a sense, they did not believe their compositions really “belonged” to them at all, they belonged to God… the breakdown of the feudal system and the struggles within the church could have played a part in bringing a stronger sense of ownership to society and composers, as the devout religious obedience of medieval society weakened.

November 1st, 2008 by admin

Well, this blog is finally created and in working order!

I will soon start posting my most recent essay research. Check our the categories for posts related to specific topics.