Re: [dvd-discuss] Rhapsody in Blue and the death of Jazz

[microlenz(at)earthlink.net]

That's a rhetorical question isn't it? ;-)

The protection of copyright is only for the purposes of nurturing creation. 
That's the fact that has gotten lost by many of the current generation of 
"intellectual property" lawyers. (do you think Bernard Sorkin could get one of 
this papers published in any peer reviewed journal? No. But WIPO will post 
them.)

On 31 May 2002 at 21:35, D. C. Sessions wrote:

Subject:        	[dvd-discuss] Rhapsody in Blue and the death of Jazz
From:           	"D. C. Sessions" <dcs@lumbercartel.com>
To:             	DVD-Discuss <dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu>
Date sent:      	31 May 2002 21:35:43 -0700
Send reply to:  	dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu

> It's been observed that (at least according to the traditional
> forms) Jazz -- _the_ American musical form -- is dead.  It died,
> they tell us, of starvation. Jazz is at heart an improvisational
> derivative of popular music and for the last few generations
> there hasn't been any popular music available for improvisation.
> 
> What killed Jazz?  Why, for instance, aren't there any variations
> on the theme of /Rhapsody/ /in/ /Blue/, the great Gershwin tune?
> Why hasn't someone worked variations on /Appalacian/ /Spring/?
> 
> Well, in short because the heirs and assigns of Gershwin and
> Copland won't allow it.
> 
> Amazing, isn't it, that composers today still can't build on
> classic works composed before their grandparents were born?
> 
> Would someone *please* explain how this promotes science and
> the useful arts?
> 
> -- 
> | May I have the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, |
> |  the strength to change the things I cannot accept, and the   |
> |    cunning to hide the bodies of those who got in my way.     |
> +------------- D. C. Sessions <dcs@lumbercartel.com> -----------+
> 
>