I also passed on my suggestion that they consider recording CRACK IN THE WORLD. Here is what I got back:

"The music for CRACK IN THE WORLD was thrown out years ago by Johnny Douglas. Sad, but true. Only a 'love theme' remains, which isn't justification for doing something with that score."

Amazing. A composer throwing out his own music??!!

The only way to get that music would be to try and reconstruct the score by hand! No way to make that profitable.

I guess this is one that we just won't get.

weren't there like 4 composers that contributed music to this film, Mancini being one of them?

Paul Dukas is said to have been extremely critical of his work and he destroyed most of it before he died. I remember reading in one of the Ripley's Believe it or Not books about a composer who had written hundreds of songs who put every last one into his fireplace before he died. The reasons why are probably very personal.

As I've said before in other posts, it's up to the artist to determine just how and by what works he/she will be remembered by. Not only do artists create works but they also have critical and quality control over their own works as well.

The thing about art is that like anything else on the market, it's not the creator who decides its worth.

Holst considered The Planets a weak piece and preferred his Egdon Heath and others but the public decided differently. Ravel didn't think highly of his own Bolero and yet it became his best known work.

If I were an artist, I might think something I did was miserable but others might really care for it.

Assuredly, he has much say but once the work is released to the world in the form of book, a painting or a film score, it becomes part of our cultural heritage, for better or worse. Besides, artists are not always the best people to judge their own work. It’s like trying to decide which one of your children you love best. Can’t Be Done.

If he wants to keep all his work under his control, then why publish in the first place?

I've suggested before, at some length, that once a composer (for example) records something, and it is heard, then it to some degree belongs as much to those who hear it, as to whoever actually wrote it.

Composers as various as Goldsmith, Horner and Christopher Young have successfully blocked legal releases of certain of their scores; as a consequence, they exist anyway, as bootlegs.

I am very critical of my work, and it's only around 1-2 people I can sit in the same room and listen to it with them. I guess like Hitchcock I see flaws and I get embarassed, especially embarassed in front of family.

Personally, despite what my carefully selected group of listeners say, I think my stuff gets more cornier the more I hear it, which is strange because when I'm writing it, I think it sounds good, but after a while...

...well you know.
Things change.

I have done quite a few paintings and drawings and most I have given away, some I have shown and an incredible amount of work I have tossed. I am the one who spend the hours, days and weeks creating these pieces...I am the one who has the right to throw them out. If I paint a picture to sell the prints and later descide I can't stand the thing anymore, I still have the right to do with it whatever I want. Firstly, it is my property and second I created the thing.

To think an artist has no right to do with his/her work if it is still in his/her possesion, borders on communism. It's crazy. Lunatic.

Yes, I would love many scores from Goldsmith...but my gosh if the man doesn't want them to be published, I will respect that. Who am I to tell him that his work belongs to me as well. It's total inappropiate and very disrespectful (in my book).

Listen, I have done pictures praised by others but a complete waste in my book. They are sometimes so bad that is embarrasing. Some have even begged to receive them rather than me destroying them, but I won't. They have to go. They have to be eliminated from the physicial world. I can't explain it, but they just don't reperesent me in any shape or form and thus off they go.

And, off I go...

John Morgan talked about this in one of his posts. He said the results are rarely satisfactory when trying to reconstruct a cue buried beneath sound effects and dialog. Too much of the internal detail of the music can be lost.

I would think it would be comparatively easy to reconstruct a main title theme, where the music is usually standalone. But this is an untutored laymen talking. Perhaps if John Morgan reads this post he can fill us in on exactly what is involved in reconstructing cues in this way. In the case of CRACK IN THE WORLD, I would be satisified with having just the main title theme.

Yes, JJH, Henry Mancini and Hans Salter made uncredited contributions to THIS ISLAND EARTH.

By the way, Johnny Douglas has his own CD label. Here is a link that contains more information on Douglas, his works, and his label:
http://www.radix.net/~billh/pennock.htm

Would you be willing to remove people’s memory of seeing the work?

Would you break into somebody’s house to get back a despised work so you could torch it?

At what point does an artist’s right to do away with an offending work stop?

I don’t think I am advocating communism, lunacy or craziness when I say that what artist’s create doesn’t belong just to the artist anymore once its released to the public. It would be advocating communism if I said that it was illegal for an artist to destroy his own works. It is perfectly legal. I just don’t think it’s necessarily moral to do so.

What if Picasso decided that his entire blue period was valueless? He had the money, he could have bought them back and destroyed them. All those visions would have been lost forever. Mankind would have been poorer for it.

If you want to keep your paintings and just show them to a few friends and then gut them, that is your concern. They are your private vision and you can do as you please. They haven’t become part of cultural consciousness because the world hasn’t seen them.

Obviously you care for them or it wouldn’t bother you that they exist. Why not let others who see them differently have them. They see you and your work in them and that is what they are responding to, not just what you painted.

I do understand. I used to paint. After about 5 years of work I decided that I could be technically proficient, but never great so I gave it up. The friends who asked for my work were pleased to have them and while I am sure I could improve on every single one, eventually its time to let it speak for itself and let a new vision in.

JEC:

I know it can be done, but who would pay to do it? I would take any part I could get of it, main title included, but how can it be commercially viable for anyone to do it? Well, maybe somebody will, but I won’t hold my breath waiting.

As for CRACK IN THE WORLD, it would take an organization like Silva Screen. Apparently they looked into trying to locate the master recording at one time, but that, too, has vanished.

So maybe they decided it wasn't worth the effort and expense to reconstruct it. Or maybe Johnny Douglas threw out the score because he hated it and has blocked efforts at reconstructing and rerecording it.

I recently heard from him and he said that he had been to the vaults and the score was there. So I guess he knows...

Well, if the work is in my possesion, that is how far I would go.

Would you be willing to remove people’s memory of seeing the work?

Since only God has that power, I think the simply thought of this would be a waste of time.

Would you break into somebody’s house to get back a despised work so you could torch it?

Of course not. For one thing that would be a crime.

At what point does an artist’s right to do away with an offending work stop?

At the point where he/she would try to destroy any work created by him but in someone's own ownership.

I don’t think I am advocating communism, lunacy or craziness when I say that what artist’s create doesn’t belong just to the artist anymore once its released to the public.

I went way overboard in my comment about communism and such. I apologize for that one. Yet, I still take issue on the last comment. The work will always belong to the one who created it. Yes, we can appreciate it, but it doesn't belong to us. Copies of them, yes. But if we don't have the originals, but only the copies or if we do not own the rights for the originals, then the artist can do whatever. I mean, we are talking about a person who destroyed the original notes to his scores that were in his possesion. He has every right to do so. I don't find it morrally wrong either, for really this issue has nothing to do with morality, but everything to do with the rights of ownership.

I do understand. I used to paint. After about 5 years of work I decided that I could be technically proficient, but never great so I gave it up. The friends who asked for my work were pleased to have them and while I am sure I could improve on every single one, eventually its time to let it speak for itself and let a new vision in.

True, and while I will defend your right to do this, because it is your free will who will have it so, I would also stand behind the artist who'd descide to destroy his work.

Finally, I hope you weren't offended (or anyone else) about my flawed remark about communism. I find your input incredible interesting and thought provoking, and that is always a good thing.

Scott

Put yourself in my Picasso example and tell me what you would do. Would you really destroy all those works of art? Do you think he should? I know he can (legally), but should he?

I just can’t think that it would be right to deny future generations the chance to see that beauty. The world has enough ugliness in that any chance to alleviate that we can find is good.

But we can agree to disagree on this point.

I wasn't offended and I don't think anyone else was either. I ascribed it to being passionate about the subject and as Lou has pointed out many times, art is something we should all be passionate about.

I tend to side with MWR & Rocco that once a work has reached a public, it becomes part of the culture, that it "belongs" to the public. I agree that an artist isn't always the best judge of his work siting the Hitchcock example above. I think when an artist destroys or suppresses a work it may "destroy part of our world." I don't know if I would go so far to say that an artist is being immoral by supressing/destroying his work, but I don't always agree with them for doing so.

On the other hand, I made some videos as a college student that I think are pretty damn awful. I used to show them to people but now I don't even watch them myself. Thankfully, everyone else who watched them agreed with me about how bad they were so I don't have to worry about them ever becoming part of the culture. Of course, if you want to break into my house and boot them, good luck, But if I'm home, I'm gonna shoot you.

So, when dealing with intellectual property and copyright, just because a work becomes part of our culture, our memories, our enjoyment, even our personal definition, that doesn't mean that the artist/producer/owner loses immediate ownership of the work or should.

Eventually he does. First, ideas can't be copyrighted, only the specific manner in which they are expressed. Second, all intellectual property does eventually fall into the public domain--the artist and his heirs own it for a limited period of time only, a time specified only so that the artist and his heirs can obtain a profit/livelihood off the work. This isn't granted in perpetuity.

However, in the time that an artist or even a corporation owns a work, it's pretty hard to force them to do what they don't wish to with it.

Of course, demand creates a market and if pirates can get through the blockade, there isn't much that can be done about that either. You can bust the pirates, but the work may never be able to be completely supressed after that.

Some anecdotes--Kubrick supressed Fear and Desire, his first film, all through his life. Now his heirs are suppressing it. I know of someone with a boot copy but I wasn't able to obtain it though I tried repeatedly. I first saw Vertigo in a boot 16mm print long before it was first re-issued.

Kubrick for one, but other directors like Truffaut, often tinkered with their films after their original releases, giving us different re-release versions while supressing previous ones.

Herrmann complained to Ralph Vaughan-Williams that he cut out his favorite section of the RVW 2nd Symphony in a later revision and asked him if he would put it back. RVW declined the request.

I guess the point is that an artist does change his mind, revise, wish to supress, often in opposition to the desires of his public. He decides what gets out, in what manner, etc. It's his veto power: to toss works in progress, to decide what gets out and not, to determine what he wants to be remembered by, how he wants to manage his reputation (not his criticism or acclaim but what they will be based upon). And destroying a work is just one of his options in terms of self-censorship.

I personally disagree with it. Spiritually and emotionally, I'm more on the side of MWR in this--once it's out there we should have a copy of it to have, pass on, enjoy, etc., regardless of future versions and an artist's wishes.

But I understand both sides and understand that while one pirates, the other can destroy, it's one action that each side of the conflict has at its disposal to get what they want. I certainly don't believe in taking an artist's work away from by force. I guess legally I side with the artist on this.

JEC--Reconstructing by ear is possible. Chris Palmer had to do it for some of the Gerhardt series. You sited other examples. It has it's difficulties but is one way to acquire a rendition. I always say give it a try. I may not always like the results, but they are better than having nothing in most cases. As much as I bitch about re-records, I still buy them to have something resembling the music I love in the hope that the faux version will satisfy me in some way. Sometimes they do.

I am going to use my own poetry as an example. First of all, I tend to write 2 to 5 poems each DAY, most of which end up in the trash can 30 seconds after their conception. That is usually because I simply don't like what I have written.

However, once one of my poems ends up on my web site, I have thus far refused to take it down simply because I don't think it's very good (I may change my mind in the future, but that's my policy for now).

But there was one time I did take a poem off the web site, and destroyed all written copies of it (I think it still exists somewhere on my hard drive, but I haven't looked at it in ages). Not only that, but it was the poem I had recieved the most praise for out of all poems on my web site. I did not take it down because I thought it wasn't a good poem -- in fact I thought it was one of my better poems -- but I HAD to remove it simply because I HATED it. I hated what it said about me, and I hated the message it sent to other people. I found it abysmally offensive -- not because of its poor construction, but because of it's content.

In any case such as that, I feel an artist is fully and completely justified in destroying his work. If it is simply because he thinks it is not good, or is embarrassed by it, then I can see it both ways and I'm pretty moderate on the subject.

However, I do agree with Scott in that the artist's work does not belong to the public once it has been published. I would feel gravely insulted to have ANY work of mine viewed thus.

quote:

---

Originally posted by MWRuger:
Well, legally you’re absolutely right. He can do anything he chooses with something he (the artist) owns. But should he?

Put yourself in my Picasso example and tell me what you would do. Would you really destroy all those works of art? Do you think he should? I know he can (legally), but should he?

---

I understand your point and I would like to take your analogy a little further. Let's say I was the artist who created "Jesus in a jar of urine" (God forbid), and years later I changed in that I find the art rather offensive not just to me but millions of people around the world. Since this piece does not represent me or my world view anymore, don't I have the right if not even the responsability to destroy the original if it is still in my possesion?

Yes, I used a piece of art that many would not find beautiful but then again, beauty is in the eye of the beholder isn't it? We all have our concepts of art. Most of us would argue if not go to war on behalf of film music, insiting that it is an art form. Yet how many of us had to endure the continuing barrage of classical music lovers who look upon film scores with content and disgust.

What I am saying is that a piece of art that is most beautiful to you, me or anyone else may be an abomination in the eyes of the creator. As James so eloquently put it, the art may not represent the artist anymore.

Let's look at a director who has spend years making pornos and now is making main stream films. Doesn't he have the right if not the moral duty (and I say this with restraint) to destroy all the original movies he owns?

And what about the artist who's art somehow gets out against his wishes. Yes, he keeps it because it has sentimental value to him but it was never meant for the public. Does the art now belong to us all, even against the wishes of the artist?

I don't think there is anything more emotional, more deeply personal than the different forms of art and thus they are the rightful ownership of those who create them for in one way or another the art becomes part of the artist and not the other way around. We all know the themes of John Williams. They become part of the films they were created for and eventually part of the creator himself. Who doesn't know that Mickey Mouse was the creaton of Walt Disney. Yet Disney is known for many other creations, countless of ones that were created by others under his watch.

Let's stay with Mickey Mouse. His name was supposed to be Mortimer after Disney's uncle. But his wife didn't like the name and convinced Disney to change it. Didn't he have the right to do that? And what about the physical changes that Mickey went through from that November day in 1928 to 1950 and til today? Didn't Disney have the right to demand that Mickey should be drawn in the manner that Fred Moore designed him in the mid thirties and early fourties? Some of us may like the older Mickey more, but isn't it Disney's choice since he did create the mouse in the first place or should he have to bow to public opinion because now the mouse has become such an American institution?

Yes. We enjoy the art and perhaps the opinion of the public should matter, but ultimatly it should be in the hand of the creator.

One last point and then I'll promise to shut up and get rid of my Daniel2 mode ( ) what about those great black and white movies that were butcherd by Ted Turner and colorized? What if the director had been against it (as some if not all were), don't there opinion count since they created it or would Turner have the right to change it (as he obviously did) in the name of capitalism and profit over art? I would side with the artist even if he had wished to colorize them himself, ultimately it just has to be his right and his descition.

I don't know...hope I made sense here.

Scott

As a writer myself I can empathise with all this talk about the artist retaining control of his work.

But there's another element here, a subtle one ... once the artist's work is seen, heard, or experienced by someone else, it becomes part of that other person's reality. Part of their life. It may profoundly affect them, and they may want to continue experiencing that art. Does the creator really have an absolute moral right to say to that person: "Sorry, I made this, I outrank you - I'm going to deprive you of any more pleasure in this piece of art." That's a pretty Godlike creator at work there! And a very ungenerous one at that.

Actually since those Cartoons were owned outright by Ted Turner or were in the public domain and according to your earlier arguments, he/they had every right to colorize them. But just I as believe it is wrong for an artist to destroy his work, I believe it is also wrong for others to change it. I won’t watch colorized anything. I oppose colorization for many reasons, from technical to historical. Too many to get into here, that is certainly food for another topic sometime.

As for the producer with change of heart and the Robert Maplethorpe pictures I don’t think they should destroy them. Those pictures are an important, although disgusting, work of art. They also were instrumental in bring to fore whether photographes are art or not. So simply from that aspect they should survive. If the Supreme Court can’t decide if pornography is art or not, don’t expect me to. I will err on the side of caution and let future generations have the CHANCE to make the decisions for themselves.

As long as Disney doesn’t destroy the original Mortimer Mouse cartoons and they are still available to be enjoyed, of course he can continue to grow and evolve. The fact that you still know about this is proof that the Walt Disney made the right decision. He didn’t obliterate Mortimer, he simply went on to Micky. We are not talking about an artist continuing his work, we are discussing whether he should destroy it at will.

Actually, Disney is guilty of suppression of art. Flloyd Gottfredson, considered the mouse artist of the 30’s, produced newspaper comic strips that were simply awesome. The only problem was that he was writing for an America of the 30’s. One of his long segements, spanning a couple of months of dailies, was set on “Cannibal Island”. The blacks there were portrayed very stereotypically and offensively by our standards. These strips are not available and when Aircel, a now dead comic company, tried to reprint them because they were in the public domain, Disney dumped a ton of high powered expensive lawyers on them and forced to recall and destroy as many copies of the reprint as possible. They got injunctions and sued Aircel until they agreed to drop plans for further reprints of material that might damage Disney’s Corporate image. Should Disney have the right to suppress and destroy part of our cultural heritage simply because they find it embarrassing?

James,

Well, you can bet that if that poem was as popular as you say, then someone downloaded and it is probably living on someone else’s hard drive. It has a life of its own now and it may be circling the net even as we speak. Once you put it on you web site you lost a certain amount of control of it because it became public. As long as you still have a copy of it, its not totally destroyed. I would urge you to keep it. You changed your mind once already, who knows, you might change it again.

Should Disney have the right to suppress and destroy part of our cultural heritage simply because they find it embarrassing?

Ha, you put me on the spot here. As much as it pains me, for Floyd together with Barks are surely the most important Disney (non-animators) artists ever, I would have to say yes, Disney has the right to destroy them. Although I do not agree with their reasons, for Disney has clearly gone way too political correct and we must realize the time period these comics were created in (as you so pointed out) and I surely don't agree with Disney on this issue, but unfortunately, as much as it would disgust me, I have to site with them because it is their right.

Let me ask a perhaps even more difficult question: At what point should the rights of the artist stop and the rights of the public start?

Scott

Very true. They are very ungenerous and yes, he is rather godlike in the manner that he is the creator, and yes, he has the right to say:" Sorry, no can do." For instance, so many people wanted a sequel to ET even the studio bosses, but because Stephen Spielberg had such an emotional connection to the film he simply said never. Now, did this dissapoint many? Yes. Did ET become part of their reality? Yes. Does Spielberg have an obligation to his audience? I don't believe so. If he makes a movie that flops, no one cares. If he makes a hit, all of the sudden everyone has a stake in it? I don't know, but I would say the stake is in Spielbergs yard.

Also, there's a slight difference between art that is singular (created by one person - a painting, a novel, etc) and art that is collaborative.

I agree.

Scott

quote:

---

Originally posted by MWRuger:
You changed your mind once already, who knows, you might change it again.

---

Excellent point. And I understand completely that my poem may exist somewhere else now, so it would be impossible (and futile) to destroy it. But I simply couldn't promote it anymore.

In reading over the arguments presented, I find myself more in the middleground than I thought, and there are a lot more arguments for the public than I had considered before... very puzzling to me, but I guess I'll have to think about it further.

James

Trying to pretend that the past was sweetness and light and that we never had all these horrible attitudes towards other races is the height of revisionism and does a discredit to all involved. It is part of our history and it and everything else that has happened has shaped our society and culture and by burying these kinds of things for fear that some might be embarrassed is the best way to make sure that we never understand where we came from.

Regarding the ET example, I don’t see that as the same issue. To me, that is about trying to direct the artist’s work and tell them how to create it. I don’t think anyone should do that. To bring into the topic, what if Steven Spielberg decided he hated ET and wanted it destroyed, all prints, all videotapes, everything. Now I realize that this would not be possible, but what if it was? Should he be allowed to do this?

Actually this touches on another sore point of mine, changing ET to fit our more politically correct times, Spielberg and company are going to use digital film editing to remove the guns the federal agents have in the movie. I still think he should call the film done and move on and make us a new movie instead of trying to fix something that isn’t broken.

James,

Other cartoons have been banned altogether. One is "Bugs Bunny Nips the Nips". Produced at the height of World War II, it really does go a little too far with its anti-Japanese sentiments, even by wartime standards: Bugs, in one scene, dressed as the good humour man, gives hand grenades disguised as ice cream bars to Japanese children . When Turner issued his Golden Age of Looney Tunes VHS series, it was included in volume 7. At the last minute, owing to objections, the volumes were recalled, and another cartoon issued in its place. That volume is now "The Caine Mutiny" of cartoon tapes!

Turner is not the only one who is doing this. Disney has censored or banned a lot of its cartoons. And forget ever seeing a VHS or DVD release in this county of "Song of the South". So I guess we can opine about this all we want, but the copyright owners will do what they darn well please regardless of something being part of our culture or not.

And let's not forget that Disney also changed "The Pirates of the Caribbean" ride because it was considered sexist. If that's not tampering with popular culture, nothing is!

[Message edited by JEC on 12-17-2000]

quote:

---

Originally posted by JEC:
Other cartoons have been banned altogether. One is "Bugs Bunny Nips the Nips". Produced at the height of World War II, it really does go a little too far with its anti-Japanese sentiments, even by wartime standards: Bugs, in one scene, dressed as the good humour man, gives hand grenades disguised as ice cream bars to Japanese children . When Turner issued his Golden Age of Looney Tunes VHS series, it was included in volume 7. At the last minute, owing to objections, the volumes were recalled, and another cartoon issued in its place. That volume is now "The Caine Mutiny" of cartoon tapes!

---

I wonder if my local Library knows that they're not supposed to have this. I've seen it because I borrowed the Golden Age Of Looney Toons volume seven from them, and it was on it.

That's an annoying decision....not because the story really negatively portrays stereotypes, but because it merely portrays them. (Uncle Remus is, after all, the protagonist of the story.) Those stories are really a part of culture...and not a bad part, at that.

As a scholar of stories, storytelling, I just think it's incredibly destructive to censor a part of history like that. The point is that we learn from them.

What about the book burnings in history? Against the artists wishes, yet they were destroyed because society deemed it so. (Part of society anaywas).

Art is for society to view, not to change, leave that in the hand of the artist. Yes, it may mean that some will change the art themselves or even destroy it, but if we continue to let certain individuals change art in the name of culture, that would be very much worse.

There is lots of debate about (oh, let's say) films these days which are artistically "tweaked" for whatever purposes. Disney's Aladdin needed some lyric revision (the "cut off your nose" line...preserved on the soundtrack, but altered for video.) The artists changed it, so must it be acceptable?
Even film revision like "Star Wars" and "The Exorcist" catch fire for improving on an already-good thing.

Recent releases of older film scores (I'll use "Jaws" as the example, here, though "Total Recall" seems to be a hot one, also) are usually cause for great celebration within our filmmusic community, but how many people--upon purchasing said score--throw away their older version? And if not, why not? Sound differences? Content difference? Is the presentation better, worse, or is there just an emotional attachment to the former rather than the latter?

Revisionism created by current attitudes strikes me as a form of cultural destruction. We lose original versions and get bowderized ones in its place.

PC has created its own censorship too. Spike Lee was on Politically Incorrect and pointed out that the NYT refused to print an add for Spike Lee's Bamboozled that featured a painting of a Sambo type eating a watermelon. People would find it too offensive even if Spike was using the image in a self-refelctive, non-literal sense.

It's just another conundrum of the modern world--artists, public, producers, distributors, critics, all having their own demands and agendas that conflict in some cases with everyone else's. Sadly and confusingly, I understand everyone's position and viewpoint in this conflict despite having my own personal views and demands. I see the situation but not the solution.