I JUST discovered today (friggin a decade after game release) the Tristan and Isolde reference in Diablo 2 Lord of Destruction's soundtrack while running through Worldstone Keep. It was marvelous. You guys are f**ing ridiculous. It's an homage, not plagiarism. Below, I explain why the naysayers fail at logic:
There is CLEARLY intent to quote, because it's very direct with no variation. There is clearly NO MALICIOUS INTENT because the pieces quoted are EXTREMELY WELL-KNOWN. This solidifies Uelmen's desire to QUOTE from the greats. There is also not excessive quoting (he quotes 1 motif, that's it; it's not like he ripped off the entire piece!)
If any of you were actual working composers for commercial films, TV or video games, or at least educated in this area, you would understand Uelmen's need to so directly copy the parts: IF HE HAD SOME VARIATIONS, NOT ONE OF US WOULD REALIZE IT'S A QUOTATION. Why? Because, in today's world of extremely abundant music, "almost stealing" themes is rampant and I hate it more than anything else. Basically many many songwriters and composers will copy something 95%, change a couple of rhythms and notes, and claim it as their own.
About half of all FAMOUS film composers, including but not limited to Jerry Goldsmith and John Williams, will readily admit to straight up "ripping off" Stravinsky to the point of "plagiarism". So, if you want to criticize Uelmen, why don't you first instead start with 99% of the composers in Hollywood!
Also, look at all cases of true 100% malicious plagiarism: They are always from NON-well-known songs/pieces. e.g. Chris Brown's recent case.
So my point is, copying a famous piece DIRECTLY actually INDIRECTLY GIVES CREDIT TO THE ORIGINAL COMPOSER because it allows us to RECOGNIZE THAT IT IS SURELY FROM THOSE PIECES. If Uelmen had changed a couple things here and there, he'd be weaseling his way out, trying to claim it as his own! What Uelmen did, is magnificent.
0
There is CLEARLY intent to quote, because it's very direct with no variation. There is clearly NO MALICIOUS INTENT because the pieces quoted are EXTREMELY WELL-KNOWN. This solidifies Uelmen's desire to QUOTE from the greats. There is also not excessive quoting (he quotes 1 motif, that's it; it's not like he ripped off the entire piece!)
If any of you were actual working composers for commercial films, TV or video games, or at least educated in this area, you would understand Uelmen's need to so directly copy the parts: IF HE HAD SOME VARIATIONS, NOT ONE OF US WOULD REALIZE IT'S A QUOTATION. Why? Because, in today's world of extremely abundant music, "almost stealing" themes is rampant and I hate it more than anything else. Basically many many songwriters and composers will copy something 95%, change a couple of rhythms and notes, and claim it as their own.
About half of all FAMOUS film composers, including but not limited to Jerry Goldsmith and John Williams, will readily admit to straight up "ripping off" Stravinsky to the point of "plagiarism". So, if you want to criticize Uelmen, why don't you first instead start with 99% of the composers in Hollywood!
Also, look at all cases of true 100% malicious plagiarism: They are always from NON-well-known songs/pieces. e.g. Chris Brown's recent case.
So my point is, copying a famous piece DIRECTLY actually INDIRECTLY GIVES CREDIT TO THE ORIGINAL COMPOSER because it allows us to RECOGNIZE THAT IT IS SURELY FROM THOSE PIECES. If Uelmen had changed a couple things here and there, he'd be weaseling his way out, trying to claim it as his own! What Uelmen did, is magnificent.