be.jazz comments
i will take this to home territory and talk about literature. in general, when it comes to my own writing i subscribe to the second school of thought. i find that making conscious variations on someone else's work leaves me hating the result, and no love or appreciation from anyone else can redeem it in my eyes and save it from the delete key. this is not always a good thing, given that influences will always subconsciously shine through and i think it's necessary to learn how to channel them in a voluntary way.
on the other hand, i think for example translators of great literary works should be given full writer's status. it certainly takes creativity and a flawless command of the subtleties of two languages, if not even three, to translate beckett's prose successfully and not lose any of its endless layers. imagination is equally essential. an 83-year old woman translated miller's Sexus into Romanian last year, after doing a six-months research on-site in the slums of the capital in order to collect an equal number of slang synonyms for female genitalia to the one used by the author. even beyond this proof of dedication, the result beats in artistry much of what i've read by fellows such as richard ford or philip roth, who are both celebrated contemporary authors.
just my two-pence. i don't know if the same rationale can be applied to music though.
Maybe the musical equivalent of the translator is the arranger?
Commenting by HaloScan
