 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Jun 8, 2004 - 1:55 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Tall Guy
(Member)
|
Hi all
I'm really sorry, but I just want to mention that self-plagiarism is an oxymoron. Plagiarism is the act of taking someone else's words and ideas and presenting them as your own. Therefore, if they're your ideas to start with, it's not plagiarism, it's repetition or self-quoting.
Not trying to be a smartypants, but this phrase just grates on me! And, unusually, it's too humid for comfort in Yorkshire so I'm feeling a bit tetchy.
S'there 
Chris
ps I personally don't mind composers quoting or repeating themselves. I do mind it when they appear to be trying to pass another composer's work off as their own. But you probably know that, because I've mentioned it before, ad nauseam.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Jun 10, 2004 - 6:18 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Jehannum
(Member)
|
I'm really sorry, but I just want to mention that self-plagiarism is an oxymoron. Plagiarism is the act of taking someone else's words and ideas and presenting them as your own. Therefore, if they're your ideas to start with, it's not plagiarism, it's repetition or self-quoting.
Hmph! (Doesn't like being corrected ).
I can reply to this in three ways.
1. "Self-plagiarism" is not an oxymoron because, during the time between the original act and the repetition, cells have died and others have divided in the body of the subject and the subject's mind has changed in many ways too - new knowledge, possibly different attitudes, etc. so it could be argued that the subject is now a different person to the one that they were.
2. Oxymorons have rights too. What's wrong with using them for rhetorical effect? What can make a startling and memorable point better than the juxtaposition of conflicting words?
3. Oh crap, Chris, you're right. "Self-plagiarism" is indeed incorrect usage.
I'll have to think about which one is the right answer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Jun 10, 2004 - 8:41 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
joan hue
(Member)
|
Sometimes this all seems a little confusing. Seems to me that plagiarism is when Composer
X lifts music from Composer Y without giving credit to Y. If Composer X lifts from himself, I'd
call that redundancy, forgetfulness, lazyitus or......or....maybe signature style, one's personal
artistic stamp. I hear signature styles all the time in composers, especially in orchestrations.
I recently got IN SESSIONS. If I didn't recognize the melody, I tried to guess
the composer by his style. It was easy to spot Barry and Herrmann by their orchestrations.
I can usually identify a Moross, Bernstein, Rozsa, or a Goldsmith by the way they
orchestrate. (Or by the way some composers drone.) Sometimes I wonder if we confuse
plagiarism with the distinct voice of an artist which will be used frequently. Don't know.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It's quite simple: if you dislike a composer, they're a plagiarist. If you like them, they have a distinctive style.
The only immortality in this world is for double standards.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Jun 12, 2004 - 10:32 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Jehannum
(Member)
|
Sometimes this all seems a little confusing. Seems to me that plagiarism is when Composer
X lifts music from Composer Y without giving credit to Y. If Composer X lifts from himself, I'd
call that redundancy, forgetfulness, lazyitus or......or....maybe signature style, one's personal
artistic stamp. I hear signature styles all the time in composers, especially in orchestrations.
I recently got IN SESSIONS. If I didn't recognize the melody, I tried to guess
the composer by his style. It was easy to spot Barry and Herrmann by their orchestrations.
I can usually identify a Moross, Bernstein, Rozsa, or a Goldsmith by the way they
orchestrate. (Or by the way some composers drone.) Sometimes I wonder if we confuse
plagiarism with the distinct voice of an artist which will be used frequently. Don't know.
There are grades of self-reference, from distinctive orchestration to note-by-note self-copying. I think it becomes a crime if the artist does it consciously and wilfully.
I can, however, understand some of Herrmann's self-reference; for example, he didn't expect his radio music to be heard more than once in its original medium, so who can blame him for wanting more people to hear his precious themes and reusing them for later projects?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I thought about that just as I hit the "Post" button. 
