Subject: Ethics of music representation and identity

The saying 'when you borrow from one, its called plagiarism, but when you borrow
from many its research' only when the piece is obviously recognisable is it necessary
to acknowledge it, but it is really up to the opinion of the composer really - and if
someone wins a lawsuit against that composer for plagiarism, than that was the choice
of the composer who cant really complain.
As for copying, its not physically possible. The often repeated idea that you are never
able to listen to a piece of music in the same way again (context, influences, gained
knowledge, maturity etc) in the same way you are never really able to play a piece of
music in the same way again, even if you originally composed the piece (difference in
dynamics, nuances in the music, feelings of the composer at the time of playing etc)
because there are too many factors. In which case it could be argued that every piece of
music that is played over again belongs to the musician that played it. That said, the
copyright laws are very restrictive now and limiting to cover artists' creativity. But even
though each music creation is an expression of the composers soul, part of the point of
composing is to share that expression and experience with others so that the audience
may add new meaning to the piece - and whos to argue that a person who was touched
by a part of that soul is forbidden from touching it, and possibly making it a part of
themselves and reshaping it and appropriating the music to create for themselves an
expression of who they are? I do not believe there is anything ethically wrong with that,
no matter what culture or composer it may or may not have come from, as long as the
proper respect is shown or acknowledgement given.