Expecting Rain

Go to main page
It is currently Thu October 19th, 2017, 07:04 GMT

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 48 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue October 23rd, 2012, 19:22 GMT 

Joined: Sun August 5th, 2012, 12:46 GMT
Posts: 1040
Does wiki say which earlier song the chicken one borrows from?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue October 23rd, 2012, 19:24 GMT 
User avatar

Joined: Tue April 3rd, 2007, 18:56 GMT
Posts: 337
Location: The Hill of Muses
I think Freewheelin' was released in 1963, but then I'm probably being pedantic.

As for the oft-cited T.S. Eliot quote, it should be seen in a fuller context.

"We turn first to the parallel quotations from Massinger and Shakespeare collocated by Mr. Cruickshank to make manifest Massinger's indebtedness. One of the surest of tests is the way in which a poet borrows. Immature poets imitate; mature poets steal; bad poets deface what they take, and good poets make it into something better, or at least something different. The good poet welds his theft into a whole of feeling which is unique, utterly different from that from which it was torn; the bad poet throws it into something which has no cohesion. A good poet will usually borrow from authors remote in time, or alien in language, or diverse in interest. Chapman borrowed from Seneca; Shakespeare and Webster from Montaigne. The two great followers of Shakespeare, Webster and Tourneur, in their mature work do not borrow from him; he is too close to them to be of use to them in this way. Massinger, as Mr. Cruickshank shows, borrows from Shakespeare a good deal. Let us profit by some of the quotations with which he has provided us— "
(emphasis mine).


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue October 23rd, 2012, 19:44 GMT 
User avatar

Joined: Fri October 5th, 2012, 15:52 GMT
Posts: 25
Location: no place special
NZNZNZ wrote:
According to Wikipedia:

"Understand Your Man" is a 1964 single by Johnny Cash. The single went to number one on the country charts for six weeks. "Understand Your Man" also crossed over to the Top 40, peaking at number 35.

Cash borrowed parts of the melody from Bob Dylan's "Don't Think Twice, It's All Right"."


Of course Don't Think Twice was part of Freewheelin', released in 1962.


Mea culpa on that one.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue October 23rd, 2012, 19:53 GMT 
User avatar

Joined: Tue June 3rd, 2008, 11:01 GMT
Posts: 4165
Thanks sanjuro. I feel that this quote is true. And I didn't mean it in a negative way - I feel it's completely OK to do so! There's only so many chords and progressions or riffs. You can't re-invent the wheel. The point is to create something new that feels nothing like the original piece.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue October 23rd, 2012, 19:57 GMT 
Titanium Member
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 18th, 2009, 08:46 GMT
Posts: 5506
Location: Twin Peaks
Yep, only twelve notes in western music. Twelve major chords, twelve minor, ain't so many.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue October 23rd, 2012, 21:27 GMT 
Promethium Member
User avatar

Joined: Mon December 6th, 2004, 06:22 GMT
Posts: 15016
Location: Scarlet Town
soon after midnight words and MUSIC by bob dylan
http://youtu.be/j5abLQn2CFc


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed October 24th, 2012, 10:36 GMT 

Joined: Wed June 6th, 2012, 16:38 GMT
Posts: 540
Location: Benjamin Netanyahu's palatial home
DaniArrow wrote:
T.S. Eliot said "Immature poets imitate; mature poets steal" :wink:


Lazy Dylan fans have been misusing that quote since the release of Love and Theft, try and come up with something fresh next time.


Last edited by DebbieA on Wed October 24th, 2012, 10:51 GMT, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed October 24th, 2012, 10:40 GMT 

Joined: Wed June 6th, 2012, 16:38 GMT
Posts: 540
Location: Benjamin Netanyahu's palatial home
sanjuro wrote:
I think Freewheelin' was released in 1963, but then I'm probably being pedantic.

As for the oft-cited T.S. Eliot quote, it should be seen in a fuller context.

"We turn first to the parallel quotations from Massinger and Shakespeare collocated by Mr. Cruickshank to make manifest Massinger's indebtedness. One of the surest of tests is the way in which a poet borrows. Immature poets imitate; mature poets steal; bad poets deface what they take, and good poets make it into something better, or at least something different. The good poet welds his theft into a whole of feeling which is unique, utterly different from that from which it was torn; the bad poet throws it into something which has no cohesion. A good poet will usually borrow from authors remote in time, or alien in language, or diverse in interest. Chapman borrowed from Seneca; Shakespeare and Webster from Montaigne. The two great followers of Shakespeare, Webster and Tourneur, in their mature work do not borrow from him; he is too close to them to be of use to them in this way. Massinger, as Mr. Cruickshank shows, borrows from Shakespeare a good deal. Let us profit by some of the quotations with which he has provided us— "
(emphasis mine).


Dylan doesn't do anything with the words he steals, he just sticks them onto some hackneyed melody, he doesn't invert them. The hilarious thing is that you get a sea of morons discussing how great the lyrics are :lol:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed October 24th, 2012, 10:42 GMT 

Joined: Wed June 6th, 2012, 16:38 GMT
Posts: 540
Location: Benjamin Netanyahu's palatial home
Tedham wrote:
"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."
"Some people still sleepin', some people are wide awake"


So true.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed October 24th, 2012, 10:54 GMT 

Joined: Sat June 18th, 2011, 07:44 GMT
Posts: 372
DebbieA wrote:
DaniArrow wrote:
T.S. Eliot said "Immature poets imitate; mature poets steal" :wink:


Lazy Dylan fans have been misusing that quote since the release of Love and Theft, try and come up with something fresh next time.


How about Picasso," Good artists copy, but great artists steal".


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed October 24th, 2012, 11:10 GMT 

Joined: Wed June 6th, 2012, 16:38 GMT
Posts: 540
Location: Benjamin Netanyahu's palatial home
senor10 wrote:
How about Picasso," Good artists copy, but great artists steal".


Heheh, didn't Picasso come up with that first and then Eliot later stole it?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed October 24th, 2012, 11:13 GMT 
Titanium Member
User avatar

Joined: Fri December 9th, 2011, 00:25 GMT
Posts: 6651
senor10 wrote:

How about Picasso," Good artists copy, but great artists steal".


It's perfectly possible that he didn't say that.
http://nancyprager.wordpress.com/2007/0 ... ets-steal/

Einstein and Nietzsche are often saddled with reductive aphorisms that they didn't coin, and it may be that this is a similar occurrence.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed October 24th, 2012, 11:29 GMT 

Joined: Sat June 18th, 2011, 07:44 GMT
Posts: 372
Trev wrote:
senor10 wrote:

How about Picasso," Good artists copy, but great artists steal".


It's perfectly possible that he didn't say that.
http://nancyprager.wordpress.com/2007/0 ... ets-steal/

Einstein and Nietzsche are often saddled with reductive aphorisms that they didn't coin, and it may be that this is a similar occurrence.


Indeed, however it is equally possible that he did. Some people simply don't appreciate comments that don't fit their image of a particular artist.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed October 24th, 2012, 12:06 GMT 
Titanium Member
User avatar

Joined: Fri December 9th, 2011, 00:25 GMT
Posts: 6651
senor10 wrote:
Trev wrote:

It's perfectly possible that he didn't say that.
http://nancyprager.wordpress.com/2007/0 ... ets-steal/

Einstein and Nietzsche are often saddled with reductive aphorisms that they didn't coin, and it may be that this is a similar occurrence.


Indeed, however it is equally possible that he did. Some people simply don't appreciate comments that don't fit their image of a particular artist.


There doesn't seem to be any record of him saying it. And if you're using it as a justification - hey Picasso said this, so it's ok - then it's meaningless unless he actually did say it. The quote doesn't stand by itself, it needs the proven attribution to Picasso to give it meaning, or even better the full context Eliot gave. After all, Picasso also said, "Whatever you do - don't steal without full attribution", possibly.
Hey man it's ok to steal cos Picasso said it's what great painters do, or maybe he didn't say that, but it's a possibility is a rubbish argument, although we all indulge in them from time to time.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed October 24th, 2012, 13:01 GMT 
User avatar

Joined: Tue June 3rd, 2008, 11:01 GMT
Posts: 4165
DebbieA wrote:
DaniArrow wrote:
T.S. Eliot said "Immature poets imitate; mature poets steal" :wink:


Lazy Dylan fans have been misusing that quote since the release of Love and Theft, try and come up with something fresh next time.


No. If my opinion on that subject didn't change since L&T I don't feel I need to come up with something fresh just for you. :wink:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed October 24th, 2012, 14:08 GMT 

Joined: Mon June 15th, 2009, 02:35 GMT
Posts: 859
Jaycat wrote:
theunwavedhand wrote:

But in the case of Roman Kings, he doesn't "change it around to make something different." He lifts the riff note for note, beat for beat.

As to which sources should be credited, I would say the earliest known ones.

I think you said you write? Me too. Would you ever sit down and put new lyrics to someone else's melody without crediting them? I wouldn't. Maybe that's why I'm not Bob Dylan. :-)

Hell, he did it way back when with Don't Think Twice, It's Alright (a/k/a Understand Your Man).

Like I said, I'm not defending Dylan in all respects. I agree some of his uses of existing material are more blatant than others and - more to the point - he does little with it. I still don't see why crediting is necessary, however. It doesn't change the situation, and while it might be helpful (even good manners?) I don't see it as required (except for payment purposes, but that's a whole other issue).
Crediting the earliest known source is an absurd request to ask of an artist. They are not historians. Crediting the source they know about might be helpful (see above) but no one has to be helpful.
I don't write songs, so your third point doesn't arise, I'm afraid. It might be helpful to source the melody, but I think the use of an existing song can be acceptable artistic practice. It depends on the melody and on what you do with it.


Last edited by theunwavedhand on Wed October 24th, 2012, 14:13 GMT, edited 2 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed October 24th, 2012, 14:11 GMT 

Joined: Mon June 15th, 2009, 02:35 GMT
Posts: 859
Thanks, Sanjuro, for that very informative quote from T.S.Eliot.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed October 24th, 2012, 17:20 GMT 
User avatar

Joined: Fri October 5th, 2012, 15:52 GMT
Posts: 25
Location: no place special
theunwavedhand wrote:
. . . except for payment purposes, but that's a whole other issue . . .


Yah, a pretty big issue. Especially if you happen to be grandson of Mel London and Tempest sells a gazillion copies. . . .


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed October 24th, 2012, 20:37 GMT 

Joined: Sat June 18th, 2011, 07:44 GMT
Posts: 372
But in the case of Roman Kings, he doesn't "change it around to make something different." He lifts the riff note for note, beat for beat.

As to which sources should be credited, I would say the earliest known ones.

I think you said you write? Me too. Would you ever sit down and put new lyrics to someone else's melody without crediting them? I wouldn't. Maybe that's why I'm not Bob Dylan. :-)

Hell, he did it way back when with Don't Think Twice, It's Alright (a/k/a Understand Your Man).[/quote]

In point of fact the riff is very similar but if you listen closely it is not entirely the same. ERK is slightly different and faster. Most of these arguments are academic because none of us know if Dylan entered into an agreement with the royalty holder, where one exists, prior to recording. This is normal practice and may include a provision that allows the artist to claim material as his own, or at least not mention the source. Alternatively, Dylan is running around purloining other artists material waiting to get sued. He has lawyers, Sony has lawyers, and none of them want strife, so which scenario is the most likely?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed October 24th, 2012, 20:47 GMT 
User avatar

Joined: Fri October 5th, 2012, 15:52 GMT
Posts: 25
Location: no place special
senor10 wrote:
. . . Most of these arguments are academic because none of us know if Dylan entered into an agreement with the royalty holder, where one exists, prior to recording. This is normal practice and may include a provision that allows the artist to claim material as his own, or at least not mention the source. . . .


I honestly knew naught of such agreements, so if that be the case, please forgive my rantings.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed October 24th, 2012, 21:22 GMT 

Joined: Mon February 13th, 2006, 11:15 GMT
Posts: 617
Location: East London, UK
forget that one ....


Last edited by inthealley on Wed October 24th, 2012, 21:27 GMT, edited 2 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed October 24th, 2012, 21:25 GMT 

Joined: Mon February 13th, 2006, 11:15 GMT
Posts: 617
Location: East London, UK
goodnitesteve wrote:
Lily Rose wrote:
They didn't mention him because what Dylan does is NOT plagiarism, he is just following the 'rules' of music tradition..... you take a song or a poem, or a whatever and reform it into something else..... it is not like he thinks his sources will not be found..... they will.... and are..... He is right, it is not easy.... and if you think it is.... then go ahead and try it.... many have tried, few have succeeded, and very few have succeeded in the way that he has......


I don't believe Bob is a plagiarist either. I don't know if you actually watched the video, but Bob fits the criteria, if just a tiny bit.

Bob can hide behind the term "folk music" for the rest of his life and I'll always be one of his campaigners. I was actually thinking to myself earlier, albiet just coming out of a deep sleep, but perhaps Bob silently pays for use of these lines, he definitely has the money for it, or maybe they're just truly honored.


I'll try that again ......

So, if you DON'T believe Bob's a plagiarist, why start another dumb plagiarism thread so all the ghouls can walk the Earth again .....?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu October 25th, 2012, 12:32 GMT 

Joined: Mon June 15th, 2009, 02:35 GMT
Posts: 859
Jaycat wrote:
theunwavedhand wrote:
. . . except for payment purposes, but that's a whole other issue . . .


Yah, a pretty big issue. Especially if you happen to be grandson of Mel London and Tempest sells a gazillion copies. . . .

Now that's an interesting question. If a songwriter writes a song and it's a success and he makes money out of it, all well and good. If A.N.Other comes along - lets call him Bob X - and basically rips off the melody except he writes his own lyrics to it and maybe speeds it up a bit and this song's a success and he makes money, does the original writer have a moral right to claim a share of the new income? I say no. Reasoning: he still has his song and can still sell records, so he's lost nothing. In fact, if anything Bob X's version has reawakened interest in the original, so he may sell a few more. But that's by the by. The main point is that at any time the original writer could have done the same work and resurrected the song himself but he didn't. Instead Bob X did the work required to resurrect the song. Therefore Bob X is entitled to the income resulting from his own efforts.

Of course, the legal device of copyright circumvents all that by declaring the original song to basically belong to the original songwriter. So you have a situation in which a song is published (made public) and yet is still someone's private property. In effect, under copyright law a song is dangled before the public, they can listen to it, but it doesn't belong to them. This strikes me as absurd.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 48 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group