Expecting Rain

This is exactly what I was trying to say, and I think it's a crucial point. One of the reasons is that - very early on - he was recognized as the one who changed the rules of the game, by contributing to the development of a new idea of rock's originality, which was picked up by a generation of young critics (Paul Williams and Paul Nelson are the best example here). The equation authenticity=originality has stuck ever since, so it was difficult for Dylan to shake that image off.

Charlesdarwin can probably speak more fully about this, but even classical composers have appropriated. Handel anyone?

ive heard that said,ive heard that if beethoven was alive today hed be wearing ray bans, and mozart woulda have burned his guitar and tried to organize a led zeppelin reunion tour.

Tchaikovsky was once accused of ripping off a passage from Beethoven. His answer: "I have a right to steal it -- I love it!"

That's awesome.

I can't state enough that I personally do not care what it is called. charlesdarwin has given a number of different words one could use, here on this thread. Regardless of what we call it, it is happening. You (MMD) said to me on here that (I'm paraphrasing) if someone wants to pretend that it doesn't exist, it's their problem, not mine. I do think I'm following what QAL said - she was basically accusing me of saying she's stupid, when I asked her a simple question she could have answered with yes or no - being "Did you read the other examples given?" Instead, she choses to focus on the travel guide only, once again. I suppose this seems the easiest to discard or discredit. However, scottw in the post I quoted says that it seems (note he doesn't claim to be sure that he's 100% right) Dylan has used that same book not only in the "LAT" songs, but also in Chronicles. I don't know how many half-lines and phrases off the same page it takes for people to consider the possibility of Dylan taking this book as his lead, but if people want to know I can look it up tomorrow.

There is a difference between these things:

1. A person denies there are any quotation/allusions/appropriations at all.

2. A person accepts that there are such appropriations in Dylan's work, but disputes a particular passage is a quote/appropriation.

3. A person accepts that there are such appropriations in Dylan's work, accepts your claim that a particular passage is a quote/appropriation, but disputes the claim that the particular passage in Dylan's work is a quote/appropriation from the particular book you claim it is from -- that is, thinks it might be from another work.

4. A person accepts that there are such appropriations in Dylan's work, accepts a claim that the passage in Dylan's work is a quote/appropriation, accepts that it is from the source you claim it's from, but doesn't agree that this appropriation is plagiarism.

QAL is doing 4 most of the time in arguments with you. Once in a while she is doing 2 or 3.

She is focused on the travel guide though.... and she didn't answer my question.
I'm not anymore interested in nitpicking, because basically we had a very good discussion today and I'd like to keep that spirit alive.

Not the wrong word at all. At times that is exactly what he has done. It doesn't take away his achievements as a songwriter, but there's no getting away from the fact that he's nicked a few bits and pieces here and there.

Did anyone read this? Excellent

i read the first bit, but had to abruptly cease, bob attendance at the hibbing latin club i dont know that it has been verified.

^
it said so in his yearbook.

yes but that bob is a sly one, has the bloggdom been able to place him there? he may have been in the back reading chaucer.

It appears to be the case that musicians borrow/appropriate/steal from each other with relative abandon (NOT referring here to the theft of an entire song), and in this, Dylan is no different than the sources he's allegedly pilfered--and whose work can often be traced to earlier sources, as well. The only difficulty that I have is when a singer-songwriter borrows more than a few words from a literary source without attribution--of which Bob has been guilty, though apparently it's primarily his more recent songs which have been implicated.

Yes, Chronicles: Volume I is brilliant, unforgettable, and--even with considerable help--could only have been written by Bob. However, the literary world seems to be less forgiving of quotation without attribution, and I do believe that Dylan crossed the line by not acknowledging his sources for Chronicles.

Is it possible that one reason people may not make this distinction is because the same copyright law applies equally (and, awkwardly)
to written literature (books, mags, etc.; I'm not referring here to transcriptions of songs, or even to songs as written down while being composed) and to songwriting?

Because it seems to me (who is neither songwriter nor author!) that Dylan has worked in two separate professions (not including painting or film-making), or crafts, each with a somewhat different canon of ethics, although governed by the same law.

I wonder if that is why the other 5 Chronicles are stalled out. Someone took all the fun out of it for Bob.

I've wondered about that one myself, Barefoot! My hope is that the book (or, books) has indeed been written, but is being just a bit more thoroughly vetted by the publisher's legal staff this time around.

bob dont care about the literary world, the book will be coming out sooner than later. the money situation has to be straightened out.

New York Times article on the appropriation of an artist's work that led to a lawsuit against painter Richard Prince.

"Fair Use, Art, Swiss Cheese and Me" by Michael Rips

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/17/opini ... nd-me.html

Ah, goombay, I'd agree that Bob probably sees little distinction between the literary world and the musical world--I'm sure that in his own mind, each is simply one arena in which he can exercise his creativity.

But, if I were his publisher, I think I'd take a little more time to evaluate the work to ensure that copyright isn't violated.

there was no problem on the first one, nothing just hot air. its just hot air. look at the asia series all the big ado, nothing. big succes for bob.
but the book world is in the dumps economically and they are trying to get between bob and his money, and its not going to happen. bob needs to get paid.

bob been dealing with hot air and crazy rabbis and all kinda crazies for many many years. it dont affect him. proof is he is doing a titanic song,for which there are 50 versions already, hes been convicted before its even out. bob sails full steam ahead.

Navigare necesse est.

Based on a number of posts in this thread, it is clear that the monied-interests and lawyers have successfully indoctrinated a generation of people and will soon turn art works into complex objects composed of elements for paying out surcharges that go to the last ten corporations who divide up the world between them. And you'll all send them valentines and balloons as they do it.

For thousands of years, art has been nothing but the loving repetition, transformation, and recreation of the art that came before. It's why there is culture and it's how we take in our culture. Education meant incorporating that culture and being able to embody it and pass it on through your own age.

But that gets in the way of everyone getting a cut of a pie that will now only get made by corporation-backed "artists" who can afford the cost of the monopoly on the of the G-C-D chord structure copyrighted by some industrious little devil. Funny how close that sounds to A-G-C...and genome patents. Bah. I'm sure it will all turn out fine.

Back to Petrarch and Nietzsche and the Hard Rain Remaster.

^
i agree.

i think it was gabby hayes that said everybody will give you free advice nobody will give you free money.

Well, as happens from time to time with your homespun wisdom, I just don't know what the heck you mean there. And your Heat are making my stomach hurt right now.