I agree, although a couple of them went farther than just evolving though. I can't remember which one it is, but there is a Mozart theme that he stole from 'Twinkle Twinkle Little Star'. I guess the big question comes down to a couple things. I love the idea of recycling themes from other people's music, but I also believe if you do you give credit, and if it's still under copyright you make royalty payments. Then you get the whole issue of actual sampling. Personally, if somebody stole a theme from one of my songs and turned it into something else, I'd be happy with just a shout out giving me credit. I had a friend who was making music with samples. I kept telling him he needed to keep track of where he got stuff. Most artists would be happy to share, or be willing to share for a minimal fee for a song that hasn't made it big. Of course if you wait until your song is a big hit to negotiate with them then you can get sued into poverty.
Of course, that doesn't always settle the issue. Look what happened to The Verve.
I write songs. You know how many times I've written something, then realize that a measure or two is note for note, some song that I heard 15 years ago?
Very, very often. About every time I work on a song. Compound this with the fact that a billion songs have the same chord patterns...It is very difficult to avoid.
I write by getting a lyric going, then sitting at the piano, make up the start of a chord progression, and then improvise a melody.
I don't sit with a piece of paper and a database of every song I've ever heard, and make my note choices based on whether or not it's already been done.
Only so many ways to combine notes and chords, and remain listenable. It's finite.
Nothing makes me happyier than stelling other peoples intellectual property. Jes kiddin. I was pleased when Willie Dixon sued led zep for a mil for stealin his songs and it was great when the grandaughter of an african tribesman sued for the royalties on " the lion sleeps tonite". I once sold a song that went a million for 350.00 and "unlimited studio time" As they so in the old country, "watch your tookas and "life is hard but its harder when your dumb"
I had that problem in highschool when the new software was coming out to cross-check a paper all over the internet and it gives back a percentage of the likelihood of plagiarism. It surprised me how much I had taken from various sources and jumbled up into my own opinion -- 40% of the paper was highlighted ("plagiarized")
PS. Jim, nice. Real nice-like.
---------- I could be bound by a nutshell and still count myself a king of infinite space
Jim, it doesn't have to be a simple copyright strangles the world or no copyright solution. I agree, copyright has gotten a little out of hand, but I think there is probably a compromise somewhere in the middle. Creative Commons has some interesting ideas on levels of copyright. Some of these cases, you listen to the song and hear the other song right away. Sometimes it's a little more buried. A good example of where copyright law went wrong was the 'The Verve' link I gave above. The Verve secured rights to sample the Stones, and then the Stones, when they saw how big a hit the song was, forced a renegotiation at the point of the proverbial gun. ---------- Nate Facebook
The Verve story is nothing compared to the latest law in UK that allows: to force disconnect users that are SUSPECTED in downloading/sharing copyrighted material. Law is law, and business is business (and culture is culture by the way!) If you mix and enforce business with law, it will fuck you the next day. Or say youtube muting a home-video with Bob Marley playing in the background? What the fucking right can there be to destroy MY work (i.e. my video with me in it)?
Duke Ellington had some interesting comments about this. He didn't deny it. He "borrowed" and adapted melodies that became jazz standards. He even "stole" from himself, when tastes changed.
In tribute to The Duke, I have adapted "Do Nothing 'Til You Hear From Me" into a sweet, country Blues number, so that it works for harp.
Jim, there was a great thread a while back on downloading music illegally. I wanted to focus a little more on performing music copyright issues. The two issues sure cross a lot though. There is a link in the Cracked article to a list of songs that Metallica 'ripped off' from other bands. It's ironic that a band that sued Napster for infringing on their copyrights played it so fast and loose with other peoples.
For the record, if I was dictator of the world all music would be free, but based on the number of downloads, artists would be compensated from a general tax or fee, sort of like how the BBC runs in the U.K., or how Microsoft's music service works. Let everyone have any music they want. Once music is recorded making more copies is free in the digital world. As long as the artists get paid, let everyone have it. ---------- Nate Facebook
i can't remember the exact quote but an interwiewer asked woody guthrie how to write a song and he said something along the lines of "you take an existing song and change it a bit" ---------- conjob
There recently was a very large Australian legal case, settled in favour of the copyright owners. The settlement was in the millions $'s.
With only 12 notes in music it's difficult to understand how one can avoid duplicating a riff that was done elsewhere. There are 40 numbers on a lotto card and getting the combination right is more difficult but lucky people manage & it's usually guesswork.
In the case highlighted (which was on another thread) the riff was a childrens tune. The tune was probably embedded in the writers brain without any sense as to where it was from? Personally I think such is taking copyright to the extreme.
Jim, I'm not so sure. We've used traffic stops for years to get into peoples cars and to search drivers. While I don't mind a cop using a Breathalyzer for an erratic driver searching his car because he has a broken tail light is a stretch, and even although I agree with the goal of DWI road blockades, getting drunks off the roads, I hate the idea that you can be forced to go through a drug screening just because you are headed down a particular street at a particular time. It throws probable cause right out the window. Your right, searches for digital downloads in houses makes it way to easy for police to get access to a search warrant. Even scarier is the whole business that's going on with those laptops in Pennsylvania where the school was monitoring all those students. The judge is allowing the students to review the photos, and then the student's parents. Theoretically the student gets the right to decide if the parent gets to see the photos, but I'm not sure how that will work in practice. It's always creepy when someone is monitoring you without your knowledge. Even creepier inside your home. But monitoring your children, inside your home, without a warrant? Wow.
But we already had a big thread on downloading copyrighted music. I'm more interested in the issues of remixing, covering, sampling, etc. in this thread, since a lot of us are probably doing something with it as harp players and musicians, and maybe some of the more successful performers here have even seen it from the other side.
