Yakuza an Oral History, not a Novel
Ironywaves
news:5f735fb4.03081...@posting.google.com...
> Dylan once sang with some bitterness, "Imitators steal me blind," as
> if to say, 'cut it out you nit wits.' Well, he too has gone off
> stealing people blind from time to time--minus the credit, minus the
> royalites--and then he goes off and complains about others ripping HIM
> off? Weren't they just artists using material from other art? Hootie
> and the Blowfish had to pay dearly for lifting Dylan lines even
> though they credited him backwards and forwards. You crib Bob--you
> pay Bob. Isn't there a double standard here with an added dose of
> self-righteousness? Is there anyone who is purely and completely
> original? Dylan sang, "I never asked for your crutch, now don't ask
> for mine," but didn't the crutch of melodies lifted from 1913
> Massacre, Lord Randall, The Parting Glass, Paul Clayton's stuff, etc,
> move him forward in his art AND his commerce? So, it turns out that
> he HAS asked for many a crutch, the crutch was obliged, and now he
> feels that King Bob doesn't have to give something back for something
> he gets (copyright renewed 1993)? Or does it just depend on the way
> he's a-feelin'?
"To live outside the law, you must be honest..."
We just want an honest answer from the man. What was he thinking when he
took twelve lines from a lonesome forgotten book by some Jap, and made a
great song, "by" Bob Dylan? There is no defense or excuse that explains this
simple oct of "theft". The "love" part would have been *at least* giving a
"thank you" to Dr. Saga.
> your
> > wording seems to me to be saying that Dylan is being dishonest and you
> > picture him almost like some high-school student furtively copying
> > lines from a book he hopes nobody else will ever read...
> > I mean is he supposed to release a statement with every new song
> > telling everybody how it was conceived and where he got what?
No. But when he uses *12*--- got it? !2 lines from the same source, then,
come on now, folks.. that's a no brainer. If you used 12 lines of another
man's writing, would YOU perhaps just consider giving some credit to the guy
who wrote, and published, these lines?
> > 'I want everybody to know that this line was taken from here, and
> > that line from there...'
> >
> > All artists are always always using material from other art- that's
> > what art is...
> > Paintings for example are always more about other paintings than any
> > other subject they may ostensibly treat...
> > Sometimes the artists do this consciously and sometimes
> > sub-consciously. Here's what the novelist Will Self recently wrote
> > specifically about Dylan's influence on his own work:
> > "If I were to reread my own work I'm
> > certain I'd find many tropes I have stolen from Dylan lyrics, and not
> > only the ones I filched with intent."
> > http://afr.com/review/2003/01/10/FFX20GCJPAD.html
> >
> > What's that famous quote? I can't remember it properly right now- or
> > who said it- the one that goes something like, "Good poets borrow.
> > Great poets steal."
> > Maybe somebody can remind me who said it and what the real wording is?
> > (If I had to, I'd guess T.S. Elliot - but for some reason Jean Cocteau
> > keeps popping into my head also)
> >
> > Incidentally, exactly as I was reading this thread yesterday the
> > Channel Four announcer (here in England) speaking on the TV I had on
> > in the background, said, "... and now, 'A Simple Twist Of Fate' leads
> > to..."
> > And beside me on the desk I had London's Evening Standard opened
> > coincidentally on a page that had an article under the headline-
> > 'Blonde On Blonde'.
> > (neither the TV program introduced nor the newspaper article were in
> > any way related to Dylan- and of course there was no mention of him or
> > explanation for the use of his phrases... only those of us interested
> > in Dylan would have made any connection)
> > I'd guess that it would actually be hard to go through a whole day
> > here in England without seeing or hearing some allusion to his lyrics
> > in the general media...
Ironywaves
news:5e19df94.03081...@posting.google.com...
> "Zoe" <jos...@tiscalinet.it> wrote in message
>
>
> > Yes, but Shakespeare *admittedly* did so.
> > Big difference.
>
> I'm not an expert- but so little is known about Shakespeare I can't
> see how anybody can know whether he discussed or
> admitted his borrowings.
> Maybe he did, and I'm just unaware of it but I've never seen that
> written anywhere.
> And is Dylan denying that he borrows things? I'm not saying I know-
> I'm asking...?
As far as I know, there has been no public statenment from Dylan either way
on the "Floater" problem.
> I mean he's under no obligation to come out and justify his songs when
> they are released; how does anybody know what he thinks or says about
> this.
>
> Does anybody know what he has said about this?
>
> Maybe I've misunderstood what you're saying and what that would seem
> to imply. Maybe you're saying something completely different- but your
> wording seems to me to be saying that Dylan is being dishonest and you
> picture him almost like some high-school student furtively copying
> lines from a book he hopes nobody else will ever read...
> I mean is he supposed to release a statement with every new song
> telling everybody how it was conceived and where he got what?
When a writer uses a work this extensively, I'm not sure you understand just
how major a lift 12 lines is from one work, check George Harrison's "My
Sweet Lord" case for MUCH less winning the "he's So Fine" writer[s] much
more, for an example... but yes, if I took 12 lines from another guys work
and called it mine, I WOULD think twice... about it being all right...
> 'I want everybody to know that this line was taken from here, and
> that line from there...'
"And, these 12 lines came from the same guy! Thanks, Dr. Saga! The song is
called "Floater"..."
Suzie
> "SilkUpholsteredChair" <trea...@aol.com> wrote in message
> No. But when he uses *12*--- got it? !2 lines from the same source, then,
> come on now, folks.. that's a no brainer. If you used 12 lines of another
> man's writing, would YOU perhaps just consider giving some credit to the guy
> who wrote, and published, these lines?
As somebody quoted from somewhere earlier in this discussion:
"It remains now to stress that this is dangerous territory to be too
definite about. Not only is there a vast amount of this
now-subterranean blues lyric poetry, too much for any one person to
know, but as I hope to have shown, it is in the nature of this
'treasury of poetics', as Allen Ginsberg calls it, that communality
and democracy of invention will tend to grow wider and richer than the
inventions of the individual genius-poet. EVERY TIME YOU HEAR
SOMETHING YOU THINK THIS LONE PERSON OR THAT HAS IMAGINED INTO BEING,
BEWARE: THE LIKELIHOOD IS THAT IT HAS BEEN HANDED ON DOWN INSTEAD,
LIKE SOME STRANGE MUTATING BATON IN A CIRCUITOUS BACK-ROADS RELAY
RACE."
> No. But when he uses *12*--- got it? !2 lines from the same source, then,
> come on now, folks.. that's a no brainer. If you used 12 lines of another
> man's writing, would YOU perhaps just consider giving some credit to the guy
> who wrote, and published, these lines?
I'm completely unswayed by mentioned of the fact that it is 12 lines
that he used. I still feel the same way I felt about the issue as when
I first heard that he took lines from somewhere else. 12 lines seems
relatively insignificant to me. As I said already- look at a work like
Hamlet, Shakespeare got a lot more than twelve lines from earlier
sources. Or look at how much Goethe borrowed/stole (depending upon
your point of view) for Faust.
And in both of these unassailable classics from the history of western
literature the borrowings are used in exactly the same context-
something they aren't in the case of Dylan's song. He's changed the
meaning and the use of the borrowed lines completely.
As somebody else who seemed to know what they were talking about,
stated with more authority than I can, Dylan's borrowing wouldn't
constitute illegal copyright infringement. That corresponds to what I
would have guessed anyway- it makes sense to me- the fact that it's
all used in a different context makes it seem odd that anyone should
consider it theft. What's different about this, from his use of lines
from old films? (as is so well documented) Or what's different about
say one artist quoting an earlier painter's work such as Van Gogh's
well known re-workings of Millet, and Francis Bacon's subsequent
re-workings of the Van Gogh versions? Or Picasso's reworkings and
constant references to- well just about any of the earlier artists he
admired- he did it all the time... Or in a very similar example to the
way Dylan has borrowed- what about for example pop artists re-cycling
of well recognised visual symbols- Say for example Roy Lichtenstein's
comic book inspired paintings? (they aren't all necessarily imagined
up by Lichtenstien in case there's anybody who thinks that.- For
example I've seen one depicting characters' from Herge's Tintin books.
Far from threatening to sue Lichtenstien I understand Herge -a great
admirer of pop art- was flattered and acknoledged it as a great
honour) Which brings me to another thought- somebody suggested that if
it had been from an American writer's book that Dylan had borrowed
that American writer would almost certainly have sued. I wonder... I
mean isn't there an above average chance that any particular
contemporary novelist would be honoured to be so quoted/borrowed from
in a Dylan song? I'd guess yes. Especially if they were Dylan's age or
younger...
S.
lawrence morrissey
Ironywaves
news:gRd%a.60$Sq.2...@twister.nyc.rr.com...
> i think bob cccccares lessssss.. whatever bakes the cake ..
Obviously.
Will
Suzie
> When a writer uses a work this extensively, I'm not sure you understand just
> how major a lift 12 lines is from one work, check George Harrison's "My
> Sweet Lord" case for MUCH less winning the "he's So Fine" writer[s] much
> more, for an example...
Oh...? Was that for using the lyrics of the original song? I'd always thought
it was the melody which he'd unconsciously used...?
S.
Ironywaves
Yeah, but the songs sure don't sound alike, when I listen to them...
Will
Tricia J
It has absolutely no relevance to this case, though. It was the
melody, not the lyrics, and whether you hear it or not, the court
ruled that way.
Will Dockery
True, the case is different. My point was that courts have ruled on
much more subtle theft than the "Floater" case, where many lines were
taken word-for-word, *and* as someone pointed out, the music itself is
very close to an old tune, Glenn Miller, I think it was.
Dockery
Tricia J
wrote:
>>
>> It has absolutely no relevance to this case, though. It was the
>> melody, not the lyrics, and whether you hear it or not, the court
>> ruled that way.
>
>True, the case is different. My point was that courts have ruled on
>much more subtle theft than the "Floater" case, where many lines were
>taken word-for-word, *and* as someone pointed out, the music itself is
>very close to an old tune, Glenn Miller, I think it was.
>Dockery
you know, you should just try to forget about it...
Ironywaves
news:3f432a7b...@news.aardvark.net.au...
We should probably both forget about it. You are right from your side, and I
am right from mine...