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

[stephenhsegal.livejournal.com]

It's an interesting question. And it's worth considering the flip side of it. Take Kafka, one of the greatest writers of the century, who suffered from depression through much of his short life. Almost none of his work was published while he was alive, and he instructed that it all be destroyed upon his death. His friend and executor overruled his wishes -- and the landscape of modern literature was changed forever. So I'd ask: Is the artist necessarily the best person to assess his own artistic worth?

Also, for what it's worth: When I interviewed Warren, I asked him how come there had never been a performance or recording of the symphony he'd reportedly written a few years back. He hemmed and hawed a bit before saying, "Maybe I just have low self-esteem." Well... dammit, I'm not sure that's a good enough reason.

(Though I will always wonder -- unless the opportunity ever arises to ask Jordan -- whether parts of that symphony ended up evolving into the song "Genius.")

You raise it to an even higher level . . . .

[stu-segal.livejournal.com]

. . . of ethics/integrity.

Could there be a more rigid obligation than that of executor to executee (is is a word?)? I hadn't even considered intentional disregard of an artists' wishes; I assumed no such obligation in my question. I guess the world can thank a man who Kafka clearly would not have thanked.

But I don't know that I would hang my hat on precedent - given of course that the only precedents of which we could be aware are those that fall on the side of exposing the work - we'll never know the unexposed.

Of course, another question might be, give the artist didn't choose to release the work, is it appropriate to consider the posthumously released works of an artist as their work at all (considering they may have considered those pieces as discards)?