Begins with P and isn't poetry?
Donald Davison
Dylan fan and former poet laureate Andrew Motion in a robust exchange of
views with the military historian in whose book he found his "found poetry":
http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/books/poetry/article6908977.ece
I don't suppose Motion is Mr Jinx in disguise? -
"He doesn't get it, does he?", the poet said of Shephard. "This is
ridiculous. He has got completely the wrong end of the stick. To blow off
about it like he has done completely misunderstands what found poetry is. It
has a long pedigree, which he seems not to be aware of."
Donald
Mr Jinx
> For the Love and Theft file?
>
> Dylan fan and former poet laureate Andrew Motion in a robust exchange of
> views with the military historian in whose book he found his "found poetry":
>
>
> I don't suppose Motion is Mr Jinx in disguise? -
>
> "He doesn't get it, does he?", the poet said of Shephard. "This is
> ridiculous. He has got completely the wrong end of the stick. To blow off
> about it like he has done completely misunderstands what found poetry is. It
> has a long pedigree, which he seems not to be aware of."
>
> Donald
Ha. Well, some here have mistaken me for motion before!
It is comforting to know that this debate about ownership of words
extends beyond the rarified atmoshere of Dylan scholarship. Andrew
Motion is a lousy poet, in my view, but he is, of course, more than
entitled to use found phrases to create a new piece of art. He stands
or falls by what this new work says to people. If it merely says
'Here is a bunch of borrowed phrases' then the new work of art is not
worth more than the sum of its parts. If it says more than that then
that is its justification.
Mr Jinx
Janice
> It is comforting to know that this debate about ownership of words
> extends beyond the rarified atmoshere of Dylan scholarship. Andrew
> Motion is a lousy poet, in my view, but he is, of course, more than
> entitled to use found phrases to create a new piece of art...
It is traditional to borrow from the river of creative thought, and of
course there is nothing new under the sun... but I have to ask the
same question Shephard is asking here:
“There is a further issue. My work can be lazily ripped off like
this, without any recompense — what did The Guardian pay Motion for
copying out my research? Yet every time I quote a line of poetry in a
book, I have to pay."
Bob holds a tight rein on copyright issues, even if he has played fast
and loose with his sources.. traditionally speaking. Isn't this
stopping rather than watching the river flow? Doesn't this kill the
music for the future?
Another example of denying access would be the Zappa family
organization... Frank's wife Gail has often refused permission even
for live performances of covers by small venue bands... even when
ascap rules are followed. She is concerned they will not honor
Frank's memory by interpreting and playing Frank's music as it was
meant to be played. What does this bode for Frank's music in the
future? And what would happen to music if musicians and composers
were cut off from traditional sources?
~`~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Jumbo
> On Nov 10, 7:19 am, Mr Jinx <vernon__bris...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > It is comforting to know that this debate about ownership of words
> > extends beyond the rarified atmoshere of Dylan scholarship. Andrew
> > Motion is a lousy poet, in my view, but he is, of course, more than
> > entitled to use found phrases to create a new piece of art...
>
> It is traditional to borrow from the river of creative thought, and of
> course there is nothing new under the sun... but I have to ask the
> same question Shephard is asking here:
>
> “There is a further issue. My work can be lazily ripped off like
> this, without any recompense — what did The Guardian pay Motion for
> copying out my research? Yet every time I quote a line of poetry in a
> book, I have to pay."
Good point, Janice, but as far as I can see there's nothing stopping
Shephard from inventing a new genre called "found journalism" in which
he builds his articles out of words written by others. What probably
stops him doing this is the awareness that this actually takes much
more time than just writing stuff yourself. This extra time is partly
what he is recompensing when he "quotes a line of poetry in a
book" (after all, who forces him to quote poetry?).
Mr Jinx
I know what you're saying. Personally I'm with Gail. People
shouldn't play Zappa's music if at all possible.
One thing about this good Shephard: to what is he referring when he
cites Motion's poem? If it is simply his own work then any objections
he has to it had better be addressed to himself than to Andrew Motion.
Presumably Shephard has no problem when his own publisher prints
multiple copies of his own work (even though they are copying it
verbatim and even brazenly putting his name on the cover!)
I suggest that what Shephard really has a problem with is
appropriation of FUNDS, not of ideas or words. I have no problem
about this but let him at least be honest enough to admit that.
Mr Jinx