Composing the Law: An Interview with Derrick Wang, Creator of the Scalia/Ginsburg Opera
| Pages | 5-68 |
Published in Landslide® magazine, Volume 12, Number 3, a publication of the ABA Section of Intellectual Property Law (ABA-IPL), ©2019 by the American Bar Association. Reproduced with permission. All rights reserved.
This information or any portion thereof may not be copied or disseminated in any form or by any means or stored in an electronic database or retrieval system without the express written consent of the American Bar Association.
Composing the Law
An Interview with Derrick Wang,
Creator of the Scalia/Ginsburg Opera
Derrick Wang is a composer, writer, and thinker unlocking
value in unlikely places. He teaches music and law at the Peabody
Conservatory of the Johns Hopkins University and is founding
advisor at Arsapio LLC, a creative consultancy for polymathic
growth. For more information, visit www.derrickwang.com.
There are musicians, and there are lawyers. And then
there’s Derrick Wang, the polymathic composer, dra-
matist, and lawyer who created the opera Scalia/
Ginsburg—and ushered in our current era of U.S.
Supreme Court pop culture.
Hailed as a “ercely entertaining crash course on the U.S.
Constitution and the people who uphold it,”1 Scalia/Ginsburg
is the American opera about the unlikely friendship of U.S.
Supreme Court Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Antonin Sca-
lia. First heard in 2013 at the Supreme Court of the United
States, this “perfect . . . jewel”2 was premiered at Lorin Maa-
zel’s Castleton Festival (2015) to international media coverage,
was presented in a revised version at the Glimmerglass Festi-
val (2017), and continues to be produced nationwide. The Los
Angeles Times wrote: “Could we please make it a constitutional
requirement that no one can be sworn into ofce in the White
House or Congress without rst having seen Scalia/Ginsburg?”3
An early version of the libretto (script) was published in the
Columbia Journal of Law & the Arts, with prefaces by Justices
Ginsburg and Scalia themselves.4 The opera is also featured in
Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s book My Own Words as its own chapter,
the audiobook version of which is narrated by the composer-libret-
tist from New York’s Steinway Hall.5 In 2020, the revised libretto
to Scalia/Ginsburg, annotated with over 200 footnotes, will be
published in celebration of the opera’s ve-year anniversary.
In this interview, Derrick Wang tells us how it feels to be
quoted by Ruth Bader Ginsburg, why he revised his opera
after the passing of Justice Scalia, and what makes Scalia/
Ginsburg a supremely operatic experience.
You’re a composer and dramatist with degrees in music from
Harvard and Yale. You’re also a lawyer who has been honored
for your work in IP law. How do these two things go together?
For me, music and law have always inuenced each other—
probably because, as a child, I was constantly sketching out
ideas for musicals and operas based on books I happened to
be reading. When I discovered that not all of these source
materials were automatically available to be adapted, I started
learning about copyright law and the framework in which
creators are compensated for their art. By the time I was in
Photo: Justin Heyes/Moonloop Photography
“We are different, we are one”: Justices Ginsburg (Jennifer
Zetlan) and Scalia (Brian Cheney), despite their differences,
defend each other and their commitment to the Supreme Court,
in the 2019 OperaDelaware production of Scalia/Ginsburg.
Published in Landslide® magazine, Volume 12, Number 3, a publication of the ABA Section of Intellectual Property Law (ABA-IPL), ©2019 by the American Bar Association. Reproduced with permission. All rights reserved.
This information or any portion thereof may not be copied or disseminated in any form or by any means or stored in an electronic database or retrieval system without the express written consent of the American Bar Association.
graduate school for music composition, my curiosity about
these legal topics had only increased—and so, while continu-
ing to compose, I also enrolled in my hometown law school.
Flash forward to today, and I have the privilege of teaching law
to conservatory-trained music students, giving lecture-recitals
before judges and politicians about the unifying power of the
arts, and watching talented musicians perform an opera I wrote
about constitutional law. All in all, I’m a very lucky fellow.
There seem to be some famous composers who studied law,
but they didn’t combine those two elds to quite the same
extent. For you, what do music and law have in common?
It’s an obscure club, this composers-in-law-school
alumni association, but with members as impressive as Rob-
ert Schumann (1810–1856), Igor Stravinsky (1882–1971),
and Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky (1840–1893), who can com-
plain? Of course, examining the historical record, I’m not
so sure that all of them found a legal education particularly
compatible with their creative leanings. In fact, as a stu-
dent, Schumann famously wrote, “My whole life has been a
. . . war between Poetry and Prose, or, let us say, Music and
Law .”6 Luckily, in my case, the two sides struck a truce!
For me, what music and law have in common is their
appreciation of rhetoric—communicating clearly and per-
suasively using a seemingly abstract language. And, because
I happen to write lyrics and librettos [scripts for musicals or
operas] in addition to melodies and memos, I nd that these
different languages of music and law can be happily united
through the immediacy of the theater.
Which is precisely what happened in Scalia/Ginsburg. But what
inspired you to write specically about U.S. Supreme Court jus-
tices? After all, back when you started composing this work, we
didn’t have the Supreme Court pop culture that we have today.
Things have changed quite a bit in the past decade, haven’t
they? (I can now say things like, “Back in my day, we didn’t
have SCOTUS memes.”)
The idea for Scalia/Ginsburg came (naturally enough) when,
as a law student, I was inspired by the dueling opinions of Jus-
tices Ginsburg and Scalia. When studying constitutional law, I
was reading case after case after Supreme Court case—when
I came upon three magic words: “Scalia, J., dissenting.” Every
time I read a Scalia dissent, I would hear music in my head: a
rage aria about the Constitution. Then, when I read the contrast-
ing counterpoint from his colleague and fellow opera acionado
Justice Ginsburg, I realized: the unlikely friendship between
these two justices could itself be the basis for an opera.
But Scalia/Ginsburg does more than merely depict these
justices onstage. According to the legal world, you’ve cre-
ated a “funny, exceedingly clever” theatrical narrative that
“successfully integrates huge amounts of constitutional
theory (originalism versus living constitutionalism), legal
scholarship, and landmark SCOTUS opinions.”7 How are
music and law intertwined in Scalia/Ginsburg?
It was important to me that Scalia/Ginsburg be more than
just a topical piece—and so I asked myself: How can I com-
municate, through music, the deep experience of engaging with
the law? Eventually, I came up with an answer—an organizing
principle I call “operatic precedent.” Just as legal scholarship
is based on preexisting sources, the words of Scalia/Ginsburg
are all based on things the justices actually wrote or said. And,
just as a court opinion has to refer to previous cases to develop
a new decision, the music of Scalia/Ginsburg refers to previous
operas to develop its new material.
Sounds like a supremely operatic experience. Care to share
an example of “operatic precedent”?
Certainly. Let’s start with Justice Scalia’s rst song—his
“rage aria” of dissent, if you will. Now, Justice Scalia was
known to be an originalist; he believed that the U.S. Constitution
had a xed meaning that was set by the framers in the 18th cen-
tury. A rage aria is a type of song, made famous in Italian operas
of the 1700s, in which a character sings virtuosically about what
is making them angry. In other words: like a Scalia dissent, a
rage aria is passionate, brilliant, and grounded in an 18th-century
tradition. What better musical style, then, to express his disagree-
ment with the majority of the Supreme Court?
SCALIA:
The Justices are blind!
How can they possibly spout this—?
The Constitution says absolutely nothing about this!
While the music revels in references to iconic rage arias of
yesteryear, the libretto transforms Justice Scalia’s prose into
verse. For example, “blind,” a word traditionally applied to a jus-
tice of a different sort, happily rhymes later with “enshrined,” a
verb Justice Scalia used multiple times in many landmark cases.8
And the phrase “the Constitution says absolutely nothing about”
comes from one of his more contentious dissents.9
And Justice Ginsburg’s character sings in a different style,
correct?10
Correct—the style is different because her judicial philos-
ophy is different:
GINSBURG:
You are searching in vain for a bright-line solution
To a problem that isn’t so easy to solve—
But the beautiful thing about our Constitution
Is that, like our society, it can evolve.
Therefore, because Justice Ginsburg believes in an evolv-
ing Constitution,11 the musical style in this song (her rst big
solo number) also “evolves”—from coloratura opera to jazz
to gospel (cue the organ!).
You clearly have an interdisciplinary understanding of con-
stitutional law—in addition to copyright law, which you
teach at the Peabody Conservatory of the Johns Hopkins
University. Were there any aspects of IP law in particular
that informed the creation of Scalia/Ginsburg?
It’s perhaps not the most commonly cited statute, but 17
U.S.C. § 105 comes to mind. This section of the Copyright Act
of 1976 (as amended) states that “[c]opyright protection . . . is
Published in Landslide® magazine, Volume 12, Number 3, a publication of the ABA Section of Intellectual Property Law (ABA-IPL), ©2019 by the American Bar Association. Reproduced with permission. All rights reserved.
This information or any portion thereof may not be copied or disseminated in any form or by any means or stored in an electronic database or retrieval system without the express written consent of the American Bar Association.
not available for any work of the United States Government.”12
A “work of the United States Government,” in turn, is dened
as a “work prepared by an ofcer or employee of the United
States Government as part of that person’s ofcial duties.”13
Therefore, because U.S. Supreme Court opinions t this de-
nition, they are in the public domain, which makes them more
convenient to use than if they were protected by copyright law.
That said, I was very fortunate that Justices Ginsburg and
Scalia graciously gave their blessing to the project and even
wrote forewords to the libretto. (On a constitutional law note,
Justice Scalia joked that even if he wanted to stop me, he
couldn’t—because of the First Amendment.)
Speaking of evolving documents, you updated your libretto
to Scalia/Ginsburg after the passing of Justice Scalia, and
this revised annotated version will be published in 2020 to
mark the ve-year anniversary of the opera. Why did you
revise the script, and what’s different in this new version?
After the passing of Justice Scalia in 2016, it seemed
appropriate to revisit the opera and take more of his life into
account, especially through the lens of his strong bond with
Justice Ginsburg. In this revised version (performed since
2017), there are three new musical numbers: “Dissent!” (a
song about Justice Scalia’s vivid writing style), “Oh, Nino”
(in which Justice Ginsburg shares life lessons), and a new
nale (the ending of which I won’t spoil here, as it is prob-
ably best experienced in live performance). Throughout it all,
I aimed to remain true to the theme of Justice Ginsburg and
Justice Scalia’s friendship: “We are different, we are one.”
Justice Ginsburg has mentioned that phrase of yours, and
the other lyrics above, in various interviews. There’s even
a video of her reciting these lyrics from memory in front of
an arena audience of about 15,000!14 How does it feel to be
quoted by a Supreme Court justice?
It’s a great honor. I feel fortunate that such a thing should
happen; grateful because I would not have written these
words without the inspiration of the justices’ own work;
and moved that my interpretation of their jurisprudence and
friendship is deemed worthy of sharing with the wider world.
And others are sharing it as well: Scalia/Ginsburg has
already played to sold-out houses and will receive no
fewer than six productions across the country in 2020—an
unusually high number for a contemporary opera. What do
you think has made Scalia/Ginsburg such a success?
You’re very kind to describe it that way. Although I
wouldn’t presume to know the exact reasons that Scalia/
Ginsburg has been received as well as it has, I can tell you
why I feel as fortunate as I do: When I started writing Scalia/
Ginsburg, one of my goals was to create a musical and the-
atrical experience that, true to its title characters, could bring
together people of different backgrounds and viewpoints
through opera. Fittingly enough, as I wrote, I found myself
expanding my own horizons—composing in a wide variety of
operatic styles, empathizing with all the characters regardless
of their particular views, and discovering new and fascinating
relationships between music and law.
It’s been a particular joy, then, to hear from audiences
who in turn are inspired by this opera to expand their own
horizons. Whether they are lawyers who now want to learn
more about opera, or operagoers who now want to learn more
about the Supreme Court, or (perhaps most importantly) audi-
ence members who enjoyed the comedy and recognize that
we can transcend our political differences, I’m grateful that
we all share an interest in learning from Justice Ginsburg and
Justice Scalia’s exemplary friendship.
Now that Scalia/Ginsburg is out in the world, are you at
work on any new creative projects? Perhaps a musical
drama about the unlikely topic of IP law?
I am indeed working on something new—no ofcial
announcements to make just yet, but sufce it to say that I remain
bitten by the interdisciplinary bug, and my particular subject does
have a connection to IP law. (And, after constitutional law, no
topic is too unlikely!) As a composer, advisor, and teacher, I am
thankful to have discovered my mission—to unite diverse groups
of people, elds of study, and ways of thinking through words and
music—and I can’t wait to nd out where it leads next.
“We are different, we are one” indeed. Thank you for tak-
ing the time to discuss your work.
The pleasure is mine. See you at the opera!
For more information about Scalia/Ginsburg and the ve-year
anniversary edition of its libretto, visit www.derrickwang.
com/scalia-ginsburg. n
Endnotes
1. Erin Dohony, In Opera We Trust, B S R. (Apr.
30, 2019), https://www.broadstreetreview.com/theatermusic/
operadelaware-presents-trial-by-jury-and-scalia-ginsburg (reviewing
2019 OperaDelaware production of Scalia/Ginsburg).
2. James Sohre, Glimmerglass Being Judgmental, O T
(Aug. 23, 2017), http://www.operatoday.com/content/2017/08/
glimmerglass_be.php (reviewing revised 2017 version of Scalia/
Ginsburg).
3. Mark Swed, “Scalia/Ginsburg” Opera Underscores How
Opposites Can Be in Harmony, L.A. T (July 13, 2015), https://
www.latimes.com/entertainment/arts/la-et-cm-scalia-ginsburg-
notebook-20150713-column.html.
4. Scalia/Ginsburg: A (Gentle) Parody of Operatic Proportions,
38 C. J.L. & A 239 (2015); see also Ruth Bader Ginsburg
& Antonin Scalia, Prefaces to Scalia/Ginsburg: A (Gentle) Parody of
Operatic Proportions, 38 C. J.L. & A 237 (2015).
5. The Scalia/Ginsburg Opera, in R B G, M
O W 43–55, 341–50 (Mary Hartnett & Wendy W. Williams
eds., 2016); The Scalia/Ginsburg Opera, in R B G,
M O W (Simon & Schuster 2016) (narrated by Linda Lavin).
6. See W J W, L R
S 56 (A.L. Alger trans., 1871).
7. David Lat, ATL Opera Review: Scalia/Ginsburg,
A L. (July 16, 2015), https://abovethelaw.com/2015/07/
atl-opera-review-scaliaginsburg.
8. See United States v. Virginia, 518 U.S. 515, 567, 597 (1996)
Continued on page 68
To continue reading
Request your trial