Jump to content
Gibson Brands Forums

Plagiarism, stealing or just Influence

Rabs

By Rabs
in The Gibson Lounge

Recommended Posts

Rabs

Rabs

Posted
Posted

Was just reading that BBC article below where it says that Bob has been accused of stealing lyrics. From what it says he took some lyrics from a 19th century poet and some other obscure sources. To me that doesnt seem that bad.. We all have inflence from somewhere and indeed some peoples writing methods will include stories from a local paper or say from the Bible.. Is that plagiarism? (like Metallica)

 

So where does that line lay? Is direct quotinig just a no no? (or even musical quoteing that happens probably more often).. Or is an artist allowed to do as they wish to express themselves and its just the end results that matter? (which is what I think). My only issue with it is if someone tried to claim it as their own which is just lying :) (even if the person in question is long gone).

 

What do you reckon?

 

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-19586129

Bob Dylan rejects 'plagiarism' claims

 

 

Bob Dylan has responded to suggestions he has plagiarised artists in his work and failed to credit his sources properly.

 

"Wussies and pussies complain about that stuff," the veteran musician told Rolling Stone magazine.

 

"In folk and jazz, quotation is a rich and enriching tradition. It's true for everybody but me. There are different rules for me."

 

Dylan's 35th studio album, Tempest, was released this week.

 

Earlier this year the 71-year-old received the Medal of Freedom, America's highest civilian honour, from President Obama.

 

The singer was accused of borrowing from Henry Timrod, a 19th Century poet who died in 1867, on his 2006 album Modern Times.

 

Another album, 2001's Love and Theft, was claimed to have passages similar to lines from Confessions of a Yakuza, a gangster novel by obscure Japanese writer Junichi Saga.

 

"As far as Henry Timrod is concerned, have you even heard of him? Who's been reading him lately? And who's pushed him to the forefront?" he told Rolling Stone.

 

"If you think it's so easy to quote him and it can help your work, do it yourself and see how far you can get."

 

"These are the same people that tried to pin the name Judas on me. Judas, the most hated name in human history!" he continued, referring to the controversy over his 1965 album Bringing It All Back Home.

 

 

Bob Dylan on songwriting

 

"If you think you've been called a bad name, try to work your way out from under that. And for what? For playing an electric guitar?"

 

Dylan was born Robert Allen Zimmerman in 1941 and began his musical career in 1959, playing in coffee houses in Minnesota. He took his stage name from the poet Dylan Thomas.

 

Much of his best-known work dates from the 1960s, when he became an informal historian of America's troubles with tracks like Blowin' In The Wind and The Times They Are A-Changin'.

 

The musician's decision to move away from traditional guitar in favour of an electric version in the mid-1960s proved controversial among die-hard folk fans.

 

"It's called songwriting," he told Rolling Stone. "It has to do with melody and rhythm, and then after that anything goes. You make everything yours."

Link to comment
Share on other sites
milod

milod

Posted
Posted

Thing about Dylan is that, although I've never met him, it appears he's a good image for the term "mercurial."

 

I can kinda identify with that because so many in his and my age group - too old to be "baby boomers" yet too young to be WWII and Korean War vets - had a tendency to be just what the marketing experts called us: "In Betweeners."

 

That led more than a few of "us" often to be rebellious against even the rebels and THAT led often to a knowledge that if others didn't call us "Judas," they often felt that way. Hard to pin down; taking influences from more than Marx or some hippie on the west coast or their older "conservative" opposites.

 

Many of us refused to let others put us into a box. That was as frustrating for them as their frustration often was for "us." I'd never have wished a Bob Dylan-like lifestyle, but I can understand easily the inclination to do one's own thing and if others don't care for it, they could go take a long walk on a short pier.

 

That's Dylan for sure.

 

Some of his stuff I like and have used; some I've disliked; some is so stream-of-consciousness that I often wondered if even he could be consistent in performances. I disliked his youthful vocal qualities and tend to like far better how he sounds now - and my taste hasn't changed all that much since I was 20 and just a few years behind him.

 

Plagiarism? I'd suggest something more along the lines of adaptation. But then, I didn't figure "My Sweet Lord" was entirely plagiarism either. The edge? Probably. Over the edge? I don't think so.

 

Also, Dylan was into T.S. Eliot; if you're read material like "The Wasteland" and stuff from that period, you can see a lot of material that came from elsewhere but... made into something else.

 

m

Link to comment
Share on other sites
milod

milod

Posted
Posted

So is The Wasteland plagiarism or result of research?

 

I guess my point really is that it appears only a lawsuit will bring a practical answer - and sometimes one might wonder about those results.

 

I knew artist Terry Redlin pretty well. After years of selling more prints than anybody else in the biz, he kinda got a kick outa folks who copied his style and almost his paintings...

 

I've had a lotta my stuff, especially some photos, functionally re-shot by others. But apparently that ain't breaking copyright law. Although in one case one of my photos was used and they claimed it was one reshot that way until the two were compared point by point. Then it was just an apology and an offer for dinner. The dollar value wouldn't have made a lawsuit worthwhile so...

 

So... I guess I'm a bit cynical on this one.

 

m

Link to comment
Share on other sites
pippy

pippy

Posted
Posted

I pretty much agree with George Harrison's appraisal after settling the "He's So Fine" / "My Sweet Lord" affair; "99% of the popular music that can be heard is reminiscent of something or other."

(And, apparently - according to several sources - The Chiffons re-recorded "He's So Fine" to make it sound even closer to the ex-Beatle's song to strengthen their court case.)

 

Blues? All 'blues' is related somehow.

 

Influence and co-incidence? Listen to these two. They are hardly identical but, to my ears, they are very, very similar...

 

 

 

What I dislike is underhandedness. Anyone unaware of the immediate source for Simon and Garfunkel's version of the traditional English folk ballad 'Scarborough Fair' need only Wiki 'Martin Carthy'...

 

P.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
cookieman15061

cookieman15061

Posted
Posted

I

 

What I dislike is underhandedness. Anyone unaware of the immediate source for Simon and Garfunkel's version of the traditional English folk ballad 'Scarborough Fair' need only Wiki 'Martin Carthy'...

 

P.

 

Yes but using a certain arrangement of a traditional folk song is not in my mind plagiarism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
pippy

pippy

Posted
Posted
Yes but using a certain arrangement of a traditional folk song is not in my mind plagiarism.

It all depends on individual circumstances. Usually there will be a songwriting credit 'Trad : arranged Joe Bloggs'.

 

In the case of 'Scarborough Fair' there was a bit more to the tale...

 

Martin Carthy had scored a very original interpretation of the song. On the morning of day after he heard Carthy's arrangement Simon went into a studio and recorded the track pretty much exactly as performed by Carthy. This was important as it set the legal precedent for Simon and Garfunkel to claim the arrangement as theirs and, furthermore, all the royalties garnered from sales went to them.

 

Carthy's main gripe was there was originally to be no acknowledgement of either the original source or his own considerable input. Later it was credited 'Traditional : arranged Paul Simon, Art Garfunkel'.

 

If a friend and I were to perform 'Scarborough Fair' in the manner of Carthy / Simon and Garfunkel would it be acceptable for us to claim the song as ours? Not to my way of thinking.

That would be fraudulent.

 

P.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
btoth76

btoth76

Posted
Posted

With music being produced on an industrial basis as it is, You never know whom You are actually ripping off by penning down something that You hear inside. On the other hand the ideas You hear, might be something that You've heard before somewhere, not even realizing You did! It just comes up later unconsciously, and You use it without any intention to steal. And as a final word on this: Musicians (usually) use 12 notes. How many combinations are possible to create melodies from these amount of notes after all? Limited. You cross the fine line when You use up at least two very recognizable sections of a song and present it as Yours. In my opinion, of course. Cheers... Bence

Link to comment
Share on other sites
btoth76

btoth76

Posted
Posted

Oh! I owe You something. The Omega vs. Scorpions subject. Scorpions credited the original composers, so it's a legal cover version. It's actually a tribute by them to Omega - the Hungarian band they used to open for in their early days. Scorpions will make a guest appearance on the 50th anniversary concert of Omega this month, as they did many times before:

Cheers... Bence

Link to comment
Share on other sites
pippy

pippy

Posted
Posted
With music being produced on an industrial basis as it is, You never know whom You are actually ripping off by penning down something that You hear inside. On the other hand the ideas You hear, might be something that You've heard before somewhere, not even realizing You did! It just comes up later unconsciously, and You use it without any intention to steal...

You should have been a High Court judge, Bence.......going back to the court case between George Harrison and The Chiffons;

 

"In September 1976, a US district court decision found that Harrison had "...'subconciously' copied the earlier tune..."."

 

P.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest Farnsbarns

Guest Farnsbarns

Posted
Posted

You should have been a High Court judge, Bence.......going back to the court case between George Harrison and The Chiffons;

 

"In September 1976, a US district court decision found that Harrison had "...'subconciously' copied the earlier tune..."."

 

P.

 

In my teens my friend and I wrote the entire chorus of Green Day's Basket Case. We were really proud of our work until another friend walked in as were playing it through and naturally assumed we knew it was basket case. He was quite impressed that we'd learned it, we weren't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
btoth76

btoth76

Posted
Posted

You should have been a High Court judge, Bence.......going back to the court case between George Harrison and The Chiffons;

 

"In September 1976, a US district court decision found that Harrison had "...'subconciously' copied the earlier tune..."."

 

P.

Hello Philip! I wonder whether this means You agree or disagree with my statement? [lol] Cheers... Bence

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Markini

Markini

Posted
Posted

With music being produced on an industrial basis as it is, You never know whom You are actually ripping off by penning down something that You hear inside. On the other hand the ideas You hear, might be something that You've heard before somewhere, not even realizing You did! It just comes up later unconsciously, and You use it without any intention to steal. And as a final word on this: Musicians (usually) use 12 notes. How many combinations are possible to create melodies from these amount of notes after all? Limited. You cross the fine line when You use up at least two very recognizable sections of a song and present it as Yours. In my opinion, of course. Cheers... Bence

 

!2 notes is true, but the amount of chord combinations is almost infinite.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest Farnsbarns

Guest Farnsbarns

Posted
Posted

!2 notes is true, but the amount of chord combinations is almost infinite.

 

And with no limit on using notes more than once, the answer to the question "How many combinations are possible?" is also infinite when talking about our 12 notes and melodies. Also, if I bend from a 4th to a 5th I not only gone via the flattened 5th, I've also played infinite increments in between as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
milod

milod

Posted
Posted

Yeah, in theory there are infinite possibilities. However it's my observation that in pop music of all varieties there are recurring standard sorts of progressions in terms of chord structure and melodic themes.

 

One thing that made a lot of Roy Orbison's material pretty special is the way that, in an era of three or four pretty standard progressions, he would write beyond the standards.

 

m

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...