This roving intellectual/musician named Adam Wood continues to impress me with his thoughtful posts. This one is on the new economics of music composition and publishing. There is so much to say about this, but let me just note that MusicaSacra.com has tended to favor the donor/patronage model (thank you all contributors) plus free downloads with a bit of per-copy royalty thrown into the mix depending. No one is paying all the bills this way, but the work is getting out there and no one’s human rights are being violated (such as happens when the publishers take rights away from composers).
This is new thinking and there are no final answers yet. By the way, please see our sidebar and contribute to the English Psalms book we are doing in October. After that — think of it — we’ll have all the resources we need for a beautiful vernacular ordinary form Mass (chanted and choral propers plus Psalms) all available in print and for free download.
"no one's human rights are being violated (such as happens when the publishers take rights away from composers)"
Wow, Jeffrey, I would have thought that you of all people would support the right of musicians and publishers to freely enter into contracts on whatever terms the market may dictate, the right of publishers to form cartels and use them to economic advantage, and so on. No? Have you handed in your libertarian card?
no one's human rights are being violated (such as happens when the publishers take rights away from composers).
What?!
I don't know why that should be controversial at all. If I write a song, I should be permitted to sing it. Nothing can take away that right, not even the fine print of a contract that is binding for 100 years by legislation. Rights are inalienable. Most authors and composers only sign away their rights on a lottery-style bet for royalties they rarely see in any case.
Can you point us to more information on the The English Psalms Project?
http://www.chantcafe.com/2011/04/chip-in-for-chanted-english-psalms.html
An excellent article to be sure.
I have felt for a long time that the "professional composer" idea is one that, like the music it produces, has little connection to the past, at least in Sacred Music. Most composers (historically) have been organists, choir directors, cathedral directors, clergy, etc… earning their money in another profession and composing as an avocation, albeit an avocation that is required by their "paying job". I compose a lot of music for my choir, and I'm currently working on a setting of the new translation of the Mass. When I finish it, I will probably post it online for free downlaod with the attitude that it's no sweat off my back if other people sing it without paying me for it (after all, that's not why I wrote it), so long as they don't claim it as their own and try to make money off of it. That's really all I require. And that attitude scares the bejeezus out of the publishing companies.
If I write a song, I should be permitted to sing it.
Just as long as you understand that this is equivalent to saying that two parties acting freely should not be able to stipulate otherwise by mutual contract. As to "Rights are inalienable," no, most of them are freely alienable. I have the right to drive my car, but you can buy that right from me, by buying or renting the car from me. I have the right to sue somebody for damages if he punches me, but he can buy that from me too; it's called a settlement. If I come up with a trade name or a cartoon mascot, I have the right to use it to sell whatever products I like. If another company buys those rights from me, then I can no longer use them myself, even though I came up with them.
Welcome to the free market, Jeffrey. Inalienable rights (government-enforceable, of course) and inalienable property are only a derogation from economic freedom.