Posthumous Rights?

[stusegal]

Just listened to “Preludes”, the new release of Warren Zevon work that was culled from a stash of tapes found by his son Jordan, who decided to release some of the cuts.

 
The work is wonderful, and it’s great to hear “new” Warren work, and unreleased cuts of previously released work, but, I struggle over the posthumous release of work that an artist decided not to release while he was alive.  These aren’t tapes that were recorded just prior to Zevon’s passing, they are recordings he made all along the way.  Some seem to be early cuts of numbers he later released with more complete harmonies and instrumentation - - and some are numbers that he just hadn’t released (perhaps because they didn’t measure up to his standards?)

 
The disc was very melodic and pleasant, and an absolute pleasure, however, none of Zevon’s albums over which he had artistic control were ever so calm and relaxing – while there were always some melodic and beautifully constructed songs, there were also edgy, driving, sometimes disconcerting numbers that could tie your stomach in knots or make your skin crawl.

 
So while this exhibits even more fine work by an artist who I love, I have to wonder of the right (and I mean moral and ethical, not legal) of anyone to posthumously release the work of an artist, when the artist  had clearly decided to not release that very work themselves?

 
ps. I know this is no different than a 300 year old “unfinished” symphony or ballet, or unfinished canvas, but I question those too.

Comments

And then there's . . . . . . . .

[stu-segal.livejournal.com]

. . . . ELVIS !!!!!

I really wasn't plan to play the Dead Elvis Card, but it seems like a painful proliferation of the work of the King which seems to have but one goal - $$$$$

Did you see - "ELVIS LIVES" (don't you just love the symmetry?). Do you think Elvis could have even imagined that someone would be selling tickets to "live" performances of his clone? - whoops, I mean filmed images.

So now the question morphs to - does motivation (of the releaser/exposer) have a bearing? How about in the case of Elvis, where the released work is making money, but is doing little or nothing to improve the reputation of the artist - perhaps is even detrimental?

[stephenhsegal.livejournal.com]

Well, you're the one who loves Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow, featuring an "all-new" performance by the dead Laurence Olivier, right?

Taking it back to the original case in question, I'd say this: You should absolutely feel no shame, guilt, or wrongdoing in enjoying Preludes, for one simple reason if no other. It's one thing to acknowledge that Warren never released these recordings himself. But, you know, if he REALLY didn't want anyone to hear them EVER, he could have just destroyed them. He didn't do that, though -- which suggests that, even if he didn't feel they were as saleable as the stuff he did release, he didn't consider them to be garbage, either. And even if he was just saving them for his kids, it's certainly fair enough for his kids to turn around and say, "You know, people would enjoy some of this stuff."