Bob Dylan was wrong! (Long post.. damn near an essay)
G. M. Watson
excuse its length, but there are some additional things that I felt I needed
to say. Please read it if you have the patience. It's not exactly what I
intended to write when I sat down tonight at the iMac, but it is what
emerged...
I found some of the responses to my post attacking Dylan for his
appropriation of Nic Jones' arrangement of "Canadee-I-O" to be rather sad.
I'm referring to the ones that rehash the argument that "Dylan's such a
genius that he should be allowed to get away with anything", or "Hey, lots
of other performers have done it, so that makes it OK", or "You can't
copyright an arrangement". Each of these arguments is specious and they are
merely rationales for unethical behaviour. (My favourite response was from
the well-meaning individual who e-mailed me suggesting that the whole thing
was merely an oversight on Dylan's part and offering me Dylan's address so I
could bring this matter to his attention, whereupon he would undoubtedly
correct his error. Considering the amount of attention this affair received
in the British folk press, Dylan has no excuse for ignorance.I thought this
gentleman's E was rather sweet, but hopelessly naive.)
As a number of people pointed out in the NG, you can indeed copyright an
arrangement; that's what "Trad.arr." on a record label means. Gabriel
Yacoub, the great French singer formerly with Malicorne, even released an
album with that title many years ago. But the point I wanted to make re
"l'affaire Jones" is that Nic's arrangement of "Canadee-I-O" was uniquely
his, and in the circles he moved in, he was justly famous for it. Nic
performed it for years in British folk clubs before he ever recorded it (on
"Penguin Eggs", his last album-- and an absolutely brilliant one-- until his
recent privately released CD). The song, as arranged by Nic, was heavily
identified with him among the Britfolk cognoscenti, just as "Scarborough
Fair" was heavily identified with Martin Carthy, until Paul Simon, who spent
a lot of time in London folk clubs in 1964, stole his arrangement and had a
big hit with it (after which Martin never performed it again, preferring not
to have to risk paying royalties on his own arrangement-- or to have to have
people think he was doing a Paul Simon song). Similarly, Dave Van Ronk was
famous in New York in the early 60s for his ferocious arrangement and
performances of "House of the Rising Sun", until our old friend Mr.
Zimmerman claimed it as his own, without asking Van Ronk's permission (tho
Van Ronk, a true gentleman, says he's long since forgiven "Bobby", even tho
many people in the Village scene at the time thought "Bobby" was a total
shit for what he'd done). Since in the early 60s few people had heard of DVR
outside of New York, nor Carthy outside of England, nor Nic Jones outside of
England, really, to this day, these thefts weren't much of a risk in each
case.
With the advent of global culture and the concomitant worldwide expansion of
what has become a multi-billion-dollar entertainment/marketing industry,
it's hard to remember when culture was personal and an arrangement of a
traditional song could be considered personal property. It's getting even
harder to remember a time when a song-- a traditional song, at least-- could
be so strongly identified with a single performer. Yet back in that
not-really kinder, gentler age, that was the case. Now the vast majority of
"folk" performers either perform original material and/or learn songs (and
arrangements) off records, rather than from real live people. Perhaps as a
result, the ethics of appropriation of someone else's arrangement no longer
seem to matter as much to some people Usually, it must be said, small-time,
low-profile performers). It's one thing to lift the tune of "Lord Randal"
from the public domain, write new words, call it "A Hard Rain's Gonna Fall",
and earn composer's royalties. It's quite another to do essentially the same
thing to the work of a fellow, contemporary performer, especially a
physically and finacially disadvantaged one. Call it what you will; if you
perform a song, trad or not, and simply copy some other performer's
distinctive way of performing said song without acknowledging your source of
inspiration, you're committing a form of plagiarism. It may not be quite as
bad as claiming you wrote-- oh, say, "Desolation Row"-- certainly not as
risky-- but it won't win you many friends among people who are astute enough
to care about such things. And it says a lot about your limitations as an
artist and as a human being. And if you happen to be a world-famous, very
wealthy performer who thinks nothing of lifting the cultural property of
someone who can't afford to fight back, that puts you on the same moral
level as spousal abusers and car thieves, as far as I'm concerned.
I used to love Dylan's music, like everyone else in my generation (I'm 47).
I still love much of the pre- "Nashville Skyline" material, along with
"Blood on the Tracks". I can still remember almost the entire lyrics of
extraordinary songs like "Desolation Row" and "Visions of Johanna". (The
first time I heard Dylan's recording of "Rising Sun" I was completely blown
away, I remember. The only other version I'd heard was the Animals' hit and
I'd never heard of Van Ronk at the time (1966?) Ironic, huh?) I've seen
Dylan perform live at least once; long after his prime, unfortunately. I
agree, he is a sort of genius, whatever that hackneyed phrase means
nowadays. But I think he's a faded genius, an increasingly limited genius,
and I think he should retire before he burns out completely. I haven't
bought a new Dylan album in years and the ones I have heard have not
convinced me I'm missing anything (Unfortunately, that single sentence will
probably cause me to get flamed more than anything else in this post. Dylan
does tend to inspire fanatical loyalty.) In any case, the shabby way he's
treated Nic Jones ensures that I will never buy another Dylan album. I think
it's sad that a once-great artist now feels he has to steal from the
defenceless in order to continue producing product. I do not care to
contribute to his ill-gotten gains.
I have more to say on this topic of cultural appropriation, to give it a
polite name-- and not necessarily about Dylan's, but that his musical
"partners in crime" (rock & rollers), so to speak, but (don't panic!!) I'll
save it for later. Sorry this is so long, but I feel that this is an
important topic and the issues it touches upon should not be lost sight of.
We who perform, arrange, compose, or consume traditional or
traditionally-based musical forms are custodians to an ancient tradition--
or multitude of traditions-- and I passionately believe that our hands must
be clean when we hand on whatever's left of this tradition to those who will
come after us. And that means it is crucial that we honour, cherish and
respect the work of those who have gone before-- be they scholars like Cecil
Sharp or Frank Warner, traditional performers like Walter Pardon or Horton
Barker, or revivalists like Dave Van Ronk or Nic Jones. To do otherwise is
to risk corrupting our very souls.
And before I get completely maudlin and melodramatic, I'll leave it there. I
welcome correspondence on this topic, but not flamers. Thanks to those who
managed to read this far.
perry lee
gor...@istar.ca says...
> And before I get completely maudlin and melodramatic, I'll leave it there. I
> welcome correspondence on this topic, but not flamers. Thanks to those who
> managed to read this far.
>
>
jud...@my-deja.com
Thank you for writing it.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Nigel & Nancy Sellars
near-fatal car crash has left him w/o earnings for 17 years. The mere
strength of Dylan's name sells records, and he could easily afford to
pay royalties to Nic who needs the money far more than does Mr.
Zimmerman.
Similarly, the great wrong of Bulmer's Celtic Music not putting Nic's
for Leader/Railer albums on CD is that it deprives a great artist of
income. At least let us pressure Bulmer to reissue the albums and
perhaps we can hope Dylan will be as generous.
But I doubt it.
Nigel Sellars
Zuke
G. M. Watson <gor...@istar.ca> wrote:
>This is a follow-up to a recent thread I managed to jump-start. Please
>excuse its length, but there are some additional things that I felt I needed
>to say. Please read it if you have the patience. It's not exactly what I
>intended to write when I sat down tonight at the iMac, but it is what
>emerged...
We never know the entire story about these things.
Later,
Zuke
--
You are in control until you are out of control.
Frank Hamilton
Hi,
You bring up some very significant points.
>We who perform, arrange, compose, or consume traditional or
>traditionally-based musical forms are custodians to an ancient tradition--
>or multitude of traditions-- and I passionately believe that our hands must
>be clean when we hand on whatever's left of this tradition to those who will
>come after us.
This gets tricky because when I perform a song I always change it from
the source. It's because I hear it a different way. This is why I
don't copy records. I believe that arrangements should be changed with
understanding and sensitivity. I believe that songs should be changed
also, the same way.
And that means it is crucial that we honour, cherish and
>respect the work of those who have gone before-- be they scholars like Cecil
>Sharp or Frank Warner, traditional performers like Walter Pardon or Horton
>Barker, or revivalists like Dave Van Ronk or Nic Jones. To do otherwise is
>to risk corrupting our very souls.
I think it's important to honor and cherish anyone's work in the
artistic field. But the corruption part is confusing to me. I agree
that it is important to acknowledge a source. This is just good
ettiquette. But how much change is necessary before it no longer
constitutes plagiarism? Who is the arbiter of this?
Some people have criticized Bob Dylan for basing his songs on certain
traditional folk songs that these people have felt belonged somehow to
them because they were part of their heritage and family experience.
Woody's appropriation of traditional folk songs was more tolerated
since he is purported to be closer to a tradition of folk music by
some.
Then there is the problem of the folk song interpreter (revivalist)
who arranges a song and it is picked up by a "star" who is associated
with it. This I believe is what you are addressing. I've seen a lot
of this and not sure that it is easy to respond to. For example, the
KT picked up their arrangement for Tom Dooley from (according to them)
a visitor at the hungry i in San Francisco. If you listen to the
Ash/Stinson recording of the Folkway Trio with Roger Sprung, Erik
Darling and Bob Carey you would hear that little hiccup that the KT
incorporated which may have had some affect on the song's popularity
and arrangement. It was just a hiccup and yet on a pop level it made
a difference. Now, the Folksay Trio did their version with a fast
four/four rhythm rather than the swingy shuffle that the KT did. Who
is to say where the success lies? In that little hiccup (hook)? I
think that the problem gets muddy here. Now does Simon do Scarborough
Fair exactly like Graham or was it Nic Jones? Does Dylan do the
arrangement note-for-note from his sources? Who BTW wrote the
Canticle, a seemingly important part of the Simon song? Did the
source for the song write that?
I believe in giving credit for sources as much as possible but then
how many need to be included?
I speak as an arranger who has had material lifted without
acknowledgement.
Frank
Martin Grossman
against Dylan, he has been extremely generous to fellow musicians over
the years. I don't have time to document the many examples I know about
personally or have read about. Anyway, I'm not going to do it. It's the
same old "When did you stop beating your wife?" question (reference to
other rumors intended). What would Dylan have to gain by cheating Nic
Jones for whom I'm sure he has the his greatest respect. Regarding the
"arrangement," I just listened several times today to "Canadee-io" on
"Penguin Eggs" and find Jones' version "sweeter" than Dylan's (as one
might expect, but inferior. The chords may be the same, but so what. The
guitar accompaniment is quite different as is the pacing and the feel.
It's an old song and singers have been influenced by the interpretations
of others for as long as there have have been songs and those who sing
them. Dylan also likely picked up "Farewell to the Gold" from Jones (did
he also pick up "Jim Jones from him? I don't recall where he picked up
that one) and Arthur McBride from Paul Brady (as well as "Lakes of
Ponchatrain." I think Bob show excellent taste. I hope Bob has (or will)
kick in something to help Nic Jones. For all any of us know, he may
have. He has been known to make anonymous contributions to many worthy
causes. I don't think he owes a credit to Jones or to anyone else for
being influenced or even cribbing an "arrangement" of a traditional
song, which I think is a crock anyway. Dylan might as well try to sue
the "imitators" who "steal me blind," as he called them in "Idiot Wind."
Martin Grossman
Anne
----------
In article <37520CAB...@slip.net>, Martin Grossman <t...@slip.net>
wrote:
(assorted deletions made)
Despite all the accusations hurled
>against Dylan, he has been extremely generous to fellow musicians over
>the years. I don't have time to document the many examples I know about
>personally or have read about. Anyway, I'm not going to do it.
Pity; I'd like to hear your documented evidence.
What would Dylan have to gain by cheating Nic
>Jones for whom I'm sure he has the his greatest respect.
I have absolutely no idea. Do you know for a fact that Bob "respects" Nic,
or do you just *want* to believe that, because it's difficult to admit that
some idols really do have feet of clay?
Regarding the
>"arrangement," I just listened several times today to "Canadee-io" on
>"Penguin Eggs" and find Jones' version "sweeter" than Dylan's (as one
>might expect, but inferior. The chords may be the same, but so what. The
>guitar accompaniment is quite different as is the pacing and the feel.
>It's an old song and singers have been influenced by the interpretations
>of others for as long as there have have been songs and those who sing
>them.
This goes a bit far beyond "influence", I think.
I hope Bob has (or will)
>kick in something to help Nic Jones.
I hope so, too, but then I also hope for a lasting peace in the Balkans. And
furthermore, he's had 16 years to do it, if he cared to.
For all any of us know, he may
>have.
If he has, apparently no one has bothered to tell Nic or his family and
friends about it.
He has been known to make anonymous contributions to many worthy
>causes. I don't think he owes a credit to Jones or to anyone else for
>being influenced or even cribbing an "arrangement" of a traditional
>song, which I think is a crock anyway.
Thank you for taking your mask off in public.
Dylan might as well try to sue
>the "imitators" who "steal me blind," as he called them in "Idiot Wind."
It takes one to know one-- and anyway, Columbia would probably pick the
legal fees (not that Bob couldn't afford them..)
>
...hasty annotations by GM Watson
Gerry Myerson
-> ....But the point I wanted to make re
-> "l'affaire Jones" is that Nic's arrangement of "Canadee-I-O" was uniquely
-> his, and in the circles he moved in, he was justly famous for it. Nic
-> performed it for years in British folk clubs before he ever recorded it (on
-> "Penguin Eggs", his last album-- and an absolutely brilliant one-- until his
-> recent privately released CD).
Yes, Penguin Eggs was absolutely brilliant.
Do you know that it contained Jones' arrangements of two songs written by
Harry Robertson, and didn't give him credit for either one?
I'm sure this was an honest mistake on Jones' part, and I understand it
was corrected on the CD re-release. Still....
-> (I'm 47).
Me, too. But not for long.
-> I haven't
-> bought a new Dylan album in years and the ones I have heard have not
-> convinced me I'm missing anything (Unfortunately, that single sentence will
-> probably cause me to get flamed more than anything else in this post. Dylan
-> does tend to inspire fanatical loyalty.)
Not in this newsgroup he doesn't, but I'd be keen to see the reaction
if you posted to rec.music.dylan!
Gerry Myerson (ge...@mpce.mq.edu.au)
bijou
>
>----------
>In article <37520CAB...@slip.net>, Martin Grossman <t...@slip.net>
>
<snip>
>
>>Regarding the "arrangement," I just listened several times today to
"Canadee-io" on
>>"Penguin Eggs" and find Jones' version "sweeter" than Dylan's (as one
>>might expect, but inferior. The chords may be the same, but so what. The
>>guitar accompaniment is quite different as is the pacing and the feel.
>>It's an old song and singers have been influenced by the interpretations
>>of others for as long as there have have been songs and those who sing
>>them.
>
>This goes a bit far beyond "influence", I think.
>
i've not heard the jones version, so i'm in no postion to judge.
furthermore, my knowledge of folk music (apart from dylan's) extends little
further than harry smith's folkways anthology. so i'm wondering, what
constitutes an arrangement in the context of this thread? what elements
would need to be constant between the two versions if they are to be
described as having the same arrangement?
Janet M. Ryan
>
>so i'm wondering, what constitutes an arrangement in the context of this
>thread? what elements would need to be constant between the two versions
>if they are to be described as having the same arrangement?
Or in the recording industry, where all this is driven by copyright law,
lawyers and greed?
I think this is a perfectly legitimate question, I just don't think there
are any easy answers. Or answers at all, as Frank pointed out.
In the cases of Simon vs. Carthy, and Dylan vs. Jones, the English folk
seem to be more upset by the David and Goliath paradigm--their guy being
David. Carthy's suit was successful as I understand, BTW. Then there is
another celebrated case in American folk--Lomax vs. Leadbelly, where a
collection of Lomax's was not allowed to be released until royalties were
paid to Leadbelly (or was it his estate?) That one is a bit different
again, as it relates to the copyrights of the performer vs. the
copyrights of a song collector. We don't often see those kinds of
conflicts anymore though.
In Ireland, this has become a huge controversy, because traditional
musicians who perform in public are being pressured to pay royalties on
songs which have been in the public domain forever, but now that so many
recording artists are putting "trad arr by" on their arrangements, record
company goons are trying to force payment of royalties for pub
performances, the bread and butter income for most trad musicians in
Ireland. So if you follow their arguments of what is and isn't fair, it
would be Nic Jones and Martin Carthy would be the bad guys for
copyrighting a trad song to begin with.
Also in Ireland, I've heard of instances where one trad performer
claiming another trad performer nicked "their" song, even when they were
credited as the source of the song, even though the song is traditional
and in the public domain, and the arrangements are totally different.
BTW, the Chieftains are almost always cited as the bad guys in this
regard for copyrighting their arrangements and pursuing royalties from
poor musicians. I attribute much of this to folklore/urban legend
associated with the Irish tendency to rancorous begrudgery towards
"successful" Irish people.
Not so easy to sort out is it?
Janet Ryan
Ktrnka
>
>BTW, the Chieftains are almost always cited as the bad guys in this
>regard for copyrighting their arrangements and pursuing royalties from
>poor musicians. I attribute much of this to folklore/urban legend
>associated with the Irish tendency to rancorous begrudgery towards
>"successful" Irish people.
>
Hello,
I was a big Chieftains fan for many years, first discovered them in 1976 when I
lived in Kansas. They were the "gateway" to discovering most of the musicians
in my (rather large) collection of British Isles music.
I've read a lot of criticism of the Chieftains over the years, but nothing
about these lawsuits. Can you point me in the direction to learn more??
If this precedent had been set in the last century, by the way, close to half
the classical music out there would not exist due to lawsuits.
IMO, pursuing small-time trad musicians over this issue is similar to quilters
copywriting traditional patterns and suing other quilters who use the
pre-copywrite design.
If the original tune is traditional, the courts should penalize the one who
sues big time (huge fine and all court costs) unless the small-time musician
is RECORDING or BROADCASTING the copywrite arrangement note-for-note.
My two cents.
@}~~ Ktrnka
Martin Grossman
Anne wrote:
>
> ----------
> In article <37520CAB...@slip.net>, Martin Grossman <t...@slip.net>
> wrote:
> (assorted deletions made)
> Despite all the accusations hurled
> >against Dylan, he has been extremely generous to fellow musicians over
> >the years. I don't have time to document the many examples I know about
> >personally or have read about. Anyway, I'm not going to do it.
>
> Pity; I'd like to hear your documented evidence.
I mention just a few that come immediately to mind, although there are
others I could dig out if I had the time. A couple of these are based on
my recollection of conversations with the late Gil Turner, who was a
friend of mine and sang often at the coffeehouse I ran, and the late
Phil Ochs in two conversations I had with him at the Lincoln Inn and The
International House of Pancakes in Chicago, so you'll have to take my
word for it. I think others on rmd and elsewhere will vouch for my
integrity.
Eric Von Schmidt says that Dylan's arrangement of "Baby, Let Me Follow
You Down" was quite different from his, although Bob gave him credit. It
may have been closer to someone else's. In those days people passed
songs and arrangements around quite a bit.
He credited Len Chandler for using a melody of Len's for one of his
songs -- I forget which one. I recall seeing early Bob on a number of
occasions when he would mention the sources of the tunes/arrangments for
his songs.
In a well known case, he scribbled the first verse of "Ballad of Easy
Rider" on a napkin, and gave it to Roger McGuinn, and declined a writing
credit which would have brought him royalties.
Gil Turner told me on many occasions that Dylan was quite generous with
his songs and arrangements, and quite often gave them to others. The
back and forth was a part of the folk music scene, and it was a given
that everything was up for grabs. Gil played tapes from his personal
collection -- long before there were bootlegs -- that had Dylan talking
about the things he had picked up from others. Gil told me he picked up
a lot from Bob, even though Bob was younger and had been on the scene a
much shorter time. He had nothing but praise and admiration for Bob.
Phil Ochs told me over breakfast that Dylan had given him very good
advice about opening up his style to include less specific lyrics and a
broader palette of musical influences. I could go on but I'm up against
a deadline and have to get back to work.
>
> What would Dylan have to gain by cheating Nic
> >Jones for whom I'm sure he has the his greatest respect.
>
> I have absolutely no idea. Do you know for a fact that
>Bob "respects" Nic,
> or do you just *want* to believe that, because it's difficult to admit that
> some idols really do have feet of clay?
>
I don't consider Bob an idol. In fact, I am certain he has fucked up as
much as any of the rest of us have. I don't know anyone who would doubt
Dylan's clay feet. OTOH, I don't think it's right to make him a clay
pigeon simply because he's been successful.
> Regarding the
> >"arrangement," I just listened several times today to "Canadee-io" on
> >"Penguin Eggs" and find Jones' version "sweeter" than Dylan's (as one
> >might expect, but inferior. The chords may be the same, but so what. The
> >guitar accompaniment is quite different as is the pacing and the feel.
> >It's an old song and singers have been influenced by the interpretations
> >of others for as long as there have have been songs and those who sing
> >them.
>
> This goes a bit far beyond "influence", I think.
>
How does it go beyond influence. I just listened again to Jones'
arrangement and still don't think it sounds all that much like Dylan's
version. I had heard the song years ago, before Nic Jones recorded it,
and recall the melody and arrangement I heard by whomever it was I heard
perform it was not all that different from Nic's. Does this mean Nic
took it from someone else? I don't think so. There is a lot more
unconscious borrowing going on then you allow for. You haven't shown me
how you can be so sure that Dylan hasn't changed the song substantially
enough to have created just on more version of a traditional song. The
burden of proof is on the accuser.
> I hope Bob has (or will)
> >kick in something to help Nic Jones.
>
> I hope so, too, but then I also hope for a lasting peace in the Balkans. And
> furthermore, he's had 16 years to do it, if he cared to.
I wasn't aware that "Good As I Been To You" was released 16 years ago.
At least be accurate when you trash someone.
>
> For all any of us know, he may
> >have.
>
> If he has, apparently no one has bothered to tell Nic or his family and
> friends about it.
>
Do you know Nic's family and friends? If you do, I'd be interested in
what they have to say. And if they feel strongly about it, I'd like to
see them make a public appeal to Bob and see what happens. There is
simply no motive for Bob to want to make a few bucks at Nic's expense.
Do seriously think that Bob's such a shit he would gain pleasure from
exploiting someone in Nic's situation. There are too many documented
examples of Bob's generosity for this to be likely.
> He has been known to make anonymous contributions to many worthy
> >causes. I don't think he owes a credit to Jones or to anyone else for
> >being influenced or even cribbing an "arrangement" of a traditional
> >song, which I think is a crock anyway.
>
> Thank you for taking your mask off in public.
>
This is an entirely gratuitous comment. My feeling about copy writing
"arrangements" is not in anyway removing a "mask." I've held this
opinion for years. You may disagree, but that doesn't automatically make
me wrong. Frank Hamilton, a veteran of the folk scene makes an
interesting comment about this kind of thing on rec.music.folk. folk re:
The Kingston Trio's version of "Tom Dooley." Something about the
"hiccup" which they evidently heard someone else use in their version.
He doesn't seem to think this constitutes stealing intellectual
property. But I can't speak for Frank, you'll have to ask him what he
thinks of this particular controversy.
> Dylan might as well try to sue
> >the "imitators" who "steal me blind," as he called them in "Idiot Wind."
>
> It takes one to know one-- and anyway, Columbia would probably pick the
> legal fees (not that Bob couldn't afford them..)
> >
The answer is that even with legions of lawyers, Sony's or his own, at
his command. It would be a mug's came to try to sue anyone unless you
have a rally strong case.
> ...hasty annotations by GM Watson
> >
> >Nigel & Nancy Sellars wrote:
> >>
> >> It's especially shabby of Dylan regarding Nic Jones because Nic's
> >> near-fatal car crash has left him w/o earnings for 17 years. The mere
> >> strength of Dylan's name sells records, and he could easily afford to
> >> pay royalties to Nic who needs the money far more than does Mr.
> >> Zimmerman.
> >>
> >> Similarly, the great wrong of Bulmer's Celtic Music not putting Nic's
> >> for Leader/Railer albums on CD is that it deprives a great artist of
> >> income. At least let us pressure Bulmer to reissue the albums and
> >> perhaps we can hope Dylan will be as generous.
> >>
> >> But I doubt it.
> >>
> >> Nigel Sellars
--
Martin Grossman
Principal
The Grossman Group
1525 Shattuck Avenue, Suite J
Berkeley, CA 94709
Phone (510) 843-1573
Fax (510) 843-1574
E-mail t...@slip.net
Janet M. Ryan
>
> Janet M. Ryan writes:
>
> >
> >BTW, the Chieftains are almost always cited as the bad guys in this
> >regard for copyrighting their arrangements and pursuing royalties from
> >poor musicians. I attribute much of this to folklore/urban legend
> >associated with the Irish tendency to rancorous begrudgery towards
> >"successful" Irish people.
> >
>
> Hello,
>
> I was a big Chieftains fan for many years, first discovered them in
> 1976 when I lived in Kansas. They were the "gateway" to discovering
>most of the musicians in my (rather large) collection of British Isles
>music.
>
> I've read a lot of criticism of the Chieftains over the years, but
>nothing about these lawsuits. Can you point me in the direction to learn more??
>
Dunno that there have been any lawsuits. I was talking about people's
perceptions that there *were* lawsuits, or at least an attempt by the
Chieftain's to go after people's money, hence my reference to
folklore/urban legend. And of course, even if there were lawsuits, it
doesn't mean it was the Chieftains that were pursing them. As far as I
know, it is the entity which holds the copyright *or* can be harmed by
infringements (i.e. record companies) that has the right to sue. But
damned if I know what the law is in Ireland--I have a hard enough time
trying to sort through the copyright law in the U.S.
Which BTW, now that I think of it, bears consideration I think. Not only
are the laws themselves different (though I believe GATT attempted to
cover some gaps on behalf of the Big Boys), but the cultural perceptions
of what is "fair use" differ as well I think, particularly in the
instances of British vs. American artists. Two empires arguing over who
will own the world, I guess. Goliath vs. Goliath?
Hmmmmmm.....
Janet Ryan
Frank Hamilton
source for the ballad "Lady Gay". I thought that was a generous
move.
Frank Hamilton
Abby Sale
>I just listened several times today to "Canadee-io" on
>"Penguin Eggs" and find Jones' version "sweeter" than Dylan's (as one
>might expect, but inferior. The chords may be the same, but so what. The
>guitar accompaniment is quite different as is the pacing and the feel.
>It's an old song and singers have been influenced by the interpretations
>of others for as long as there have have been songs and those who sing
>them.
1) At least this confirms that they are the same tune. I've not heard
Dylan. If you take a tune from somebody and it's not P.D., it should be
credited. Even Simon & Garfunkle know that.
2) As with many others, Jones does not know where he got the tune. He may
have written it or had it given to him.
3) It does appear to be a traditional tune. Although the song, itself, is
very old.
4) Probably the first publication of the song is in print was somewhere
before 1800 in _The Caledonian Garland_ in the Boswell Chapbooks. But no
tune.
5) Greig & Duncan had several tunes for "Caledonia" by 1910 but these were
not widely avaiilable until 1984. To my poor ear, none of these are
similar to Jones'.
BTW. In the literature, the song is often identified as "the love song"
for "Caledonia" and "Pretty Caledonia" versions and as "the sea song" for
"Canadee-i-o" (etc) versions.
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- ---
I am Abby Sale - abby...@orlinter.com (That's in Orlando)
G. M. Watson
----------
In article <3752E03E...@slip.net>, Martin Grossman <t...@slip.net>
wrote:
(A few chunks snippped here & there for brevity's sake)
>>
>> ----------
>> In article <37520CAB...@slip.net>, Martin Grossman <t...@slip.net>
>> wrote:
>> (assorted deletions made)
>> Despite all the accusations hurled
>> >against Dylan, he has been extremely generous to fellow musicians over
>> >the years. I don't have time to document the many examples I know about
>> >personally or have read about. Anyway, I'm not going to do it.
>>
>> Pity; I'd like to hear your documented evidence.
>
>I mention just a few that come immediately to mind, although there are
>others I could dig out if I had the time. A couple of these are based on
>my recollection of conversations with the late Gil Turner, who was a
>friend of mine and sang often at the coffeehouse I ran, and the late
>Phil Ochs in two conversations I had with him at the Lincoln Inn and The
>International House of Pancakes in Chicago, so you'll have to take my
>word for it. I think others on rmd and elsewhere will vouch for my
>integrity.
>
>Phil Ochs told me over breakfast that Dylan had given him very good
>advice about opening up his style to include less specific lyrics and a
>broader palette of musical influences.
I'd be wary of citing Phil Ochs as a recipient of Dylan's generosity. As at
least two biographies of Phil have pointed out, Dylan treated Phil
extraordinarily shabbily in the years after he (Dylan) became sucessful.
Despite that, Phil, gentleman that he was, always spoke highly of Bob and
hoped that he would renew their friendship-- right up until the bitter end.
>>>
>> What would Dylan have to gain by cheating Nic
>> >Jones for whom I'm sure he has the his greatest respect.
>>
>> I have absolutely no idea. Do you know for a fact that
>>Bob "respects" Nic,
>> or do you just *want* to believe that, because it's difficult to admit that
>> some idols really do have feet of clay?
>>
>
>I don't consider Bob an idol. In fact, I am certain he has fucked up as
>much as any of the rest of us have. I don't know anyone who would doubt
>Dylan's clay feet. OTOH, I don't think it's right to make him a clay
>pigeon simply because he's been successful.
That's far from the only reason to do so, but I'll grudgingly concede your
point.
>
>>
>> I hope Bob has (or will)
>> >kick in something to help Nic Jones.
>>
>> I hope so, too, but then I also hope for a lasting peace in the Balkans. And
>> furthermore, he's had 16 years to do it, if he cared to.
>
>I wasn't aware that "Good As I Been To You" was released 16 years ago.
>At least be accurate when you trash someone.
At least be accurate when you accuse someone of inaccuracy. The "16 years"
comment refers not to Dylan's album release date but to the length of time
(actually, it's more like 17 years) since the 1982 car accident that ended
Nic's career. And since that time numerous efforts-- public and private-
have been made by his friends, fans and colleagues to help Nic out
financially and in other ways, including assorted general appeals to his
fans and fellow performers. Many have responded most generously, in various
ways, over the years, despite the fact that many of them don't earn in 20
years what Dylan earns in one.
>>
>> For all any of us know, he may
>> >have.
>>
>> If he has, apparently no one has bothered to tell Nic or his family and
>> friends about it.
>>
>Do you know Nic's family and friends?
I don't know his family, but I do know a few of his friends and colleagues
in the UK folk scene, and have had numerous conversations over the years
with other acquaintances/colleagues of his.
If you do, I'd be interested in
>what they have to say.
About Dylan vis-a-vis Nic Jones? Most of their comments are unprintable.
Hang out in the backstage area at any major UK folk festival and ask around.
And if they feel strongly about it, I'd like to
>see them make a public appeal to Bob and see what happens.
See above commentary. Dylan, like most wealthy performers, has enough layers
of insulation between himself and the outside world that not much seems to
get through that he doesn't want to hear. And if he has heard about this,
he's yet to respond.
There is simply no motive for Bob to want to make a few bucks at Nic's
expense.
>Do seriously think that Bob's such a shit he would gain pleasure from
>exploiting someone in Nic's situation.
I know; his behaviour, seen in this light, seems inexplicable and bizarre.
>
> I don't think he owes a credit to Jones or to anyone else for
>> >being influenced or even cribbing an "arrangement" of a traditional
>> >song, which I think is a crock anyway.
>>
>> Thank you for taking your mask off in public.
>>
>
>This is an entirely gratuitous comment. My feeling about copy writing
>"arrangements" is not in anyway removing a "mask." I've held this
>opinion for years. You may disagree, but that doesn't automatically make
>me wrong. Frank Hamilton, a veteran of the folk scene makes an
>interesting comment about this kind of thing on rec.music.folk. folk re:
>The Kingston Trio's version of "Tom Dooley." Something about the
>"hiccup" which they evidently heard someone else use in their version.
>He doesn't seem to think this constitutes stealing intellectual
>property. But I can't speak for Frank, you'll have to ask him what he
>thinks of this particular controversy.
I do intend to respond to Frank's comments, some of which I agree with. I
always understood that the Kingston Trio learned "Tom Dooley" from the
recording by Frank Profitt, who was cited as the song's composer for many
years, but I don't know who contributed the hiccup. I'll have to go back and
check. A better example might be Cream's 1966 recording of the great Skip
James' "I'm So Glad", which Eric Clapton (one of the few people in rock &
roll who's willing to publicly acknowledge his teachers), ensured was
credited solely to Skip, despite the fact that Cream's heavily electrified
version was radically different. As a result, when the album became a hit
(and when Deep Purple recorded a copycat version), Skip James received the
only substantial earnings from his work that he ever did in his career. Even
though he disliked Cream's version of the song, the money made the terrible
suffering he endured in his final years before his 1969 death a little more
bearable, and brought his name before a wider audience that anything has
before or since. The group could (perhaps even justifiably) have given
themselves an arranger's or even a songwriter's credit, but chose to do the
right thing. Ironically, as Stephen Calt points out in his brilliant, bitter
study/memoir of Skip James ("I'd Rather be the Devil", DaCapo Press, 1994;
highly recommended) James himself adapted and rearranged "I'm So Glad"
around 1930-31 from a 1928 pop song by Gene Austin (writer of "My Blue
Heaven"), "So Fine", which had been previously adapted/rearranged by Lonnie
Johnson. (As it happens, Skip James' 1931 recording of "I'm So Glad" might
just be the most instrumentally spectacular recording in the history of
country blues.)
This, I guess, is the folk process in action, more or less. But it doesn't
obscure Eric Clapton's generosity and sense of justice, such a phenomenally
rare commodity in the entertainment industry. And this was when Clapton
could have used the money, long before he became a multimillionaire
megastar. Compare this to the appalling song thefts, mostly from obscure
black performers/songwriters, that the Rolling Stones, Led Zeppelin, and a
host of less luminary rockers have repeatedly pulled off. More on that later
maybe-- it's a sad story but worth retelling as a cautionary tale.
There is obviously much more that could be said about this, but I'm very
short of time this week. For me, diehard idealist/cynic that I am (depends
on my mood), the issue of "Trad" vs. "Trad. Arr" vs. "Hey, I wrote that,
gimme the money!" is one of, no matter who you are, simply acknowledging
your sources, be they living, dead, written, or recorded. This might cause
your income level to slip just a bit, but any other course of action is
simply dishonourable. And given Dylan's godlike stature in late-20th-century
popular culture, and given the number of peoples' shoulders he stands on,
and given his power, wealth and influence, I would have liked to believe
that he was a person of honour. But it has not been proven to me that he is.
Even an acknowledgement of Nic in Dylan's liner notes would have been
*something*. But, of course, there's an awful lot of dishonourable people
out there in showbiz, and some of them are even folksingers.
Perhaps not all is lost, though. In the most recent issue of Folk Roots
there is a letter from a reader stating that Celtic Music is reportedly
finally sold out of Nic's work on LP, so perhaps we can look forward at long
last to their release on CD...Bulmer had stated that he wouldn't release
Nic's stuff on CD until the vinyl was gone. Go figure. What a ****! This is
not the only OP material that Bulmer is sitting on. He's probably the most
despised individual in the whole UK folk scene these days.
>
>> >
>> ...more hasty annotations by GM Watson
Jennifer L. Brice
"Abby,
If it's a traditional song, why would it not be in the pubic domain? Did
Jones copyright the melody? I am absolutely sure I heard this particular
melody long before -- at least as far back as the early 60s, if not before.
Marty"
>
I write:
Exactly, why is it anytime someone tries to have a truly interesting
conversation about influence, someone gets on and starts a pissing contest
about plagiarism. It is as if the are ignorant of the fact that Folk itself
is all about influences, and if influence is plagiarism in and of itself,
that makes this whole genre undoable!
> > -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- ---
--
Jennifer L. Brice
http://www.tripod.com/jenniferbrice/index.html
Frank Hamilton
>>>
>>
>>This is an entirely gratuitous comment. My feeling about copy writing
>>"arrangements" is not in anyway removing a "mask." I've held this
>>opinion for years. You may disagree, but that doesn't automatically make
>>me wrong. Frank Hamilton, a veteran of the folk scene makes an
>>interesting comment about this kind of thing on rec.music.folk. folk re:
>>The Kingston Trio's version of "Tom Dooley." Something about the
>>"hiccup" which they evidently heard someone else use in their version.
>>He doesn't seem to think this constitutes stealing intellectual
>>property. But I can't speak for Frank, you'll have to ask him what he
>>thinks of this particular controversy.
>I do intend to respond to Frank's comments, some of which I agree with. I
>always understood that the Kingston Trio learned "Tom Dooley" from the
>recording by Frank Profitt, who was cited as the song's composer for many
>years, but I don't know who contributed the hiccup.
The KT probably didn't know who Frank Profitt was in those days. But
they were aware of Roger Sprung, Erik Darling and Bob Carey. They
created the hiccup.. According to Erik it was Bob Carey. It was an
arrangement "hook" which helped to sell the song.
I'll have to go back and
>check. A better example might be Cream's 1966 recording of the great Skip
>James' "I'm So Glad", which Eric Clapton (one of the few people in rock &
>roll who's willing to publicly acknowledge his teachers), ensured was
>credited solely to Skip, despite the fact that Cream's heavily electrified
>version was radically different. As a result, when the album became a hit
>(and when Deep Purple recorded a copycat version), Skip James received the
>This, I guess, is the folk process in action, more or less. But it doesn't
>obscure Eric Clapton's generosity and sense of justice, such a phenomenally
>rare commodity in the entertainment industry. And this was when Clapton
>could have used the money, long before he became a multimillionaire
>megastar. Compare this to the appalling song thefts, mostly from obscure
>black performers/songwriters, that the Rolling Stones, Led Zeppelin, and a
>host of less luminary rockers have repeatedly pulled off. More on that later
>maybe-- it's a sad story but worth retelling as a cautionary tale.
. But, of course, there's an awful lot of dishonourable people
>out there in showbiz, and some of them are even folksingers.
There is in any business of course. But before we pass judgement, all
of the facts should be in.
Frank
ghost
>Now does Simon do Scarborough
>Fair exactly like Graham or was it Nic Jones?
It was Martin Carthy.
Paul Simon's lifting of Martin Carthy's arrangement of "Scarborough" is
almost note-for-note. You can easily (now that Carthy's is back in
circulation) get the recordings of both & make your own comparisons.
Does Dylan do the
>arrangement note-for-note from his sources?
Dylan's lifting of Nic Jones' arrangement of "Canadee-I-O"
is almost note-for-note. You can easily get the recordings of both
& make your own comparisons.
>Who BTW wrote the
>Canticle, a seemingly important part of the Simon song? Did the
>source for the song write that?
I don't know who wrote the arrangement of "Canticle" but it wasn't
part of Carthy's suit of Simon & was never in contest. Of course its
an important part of the whole piece, but its a seperate, although
simultaneously played continuous part, has a complete melody of its own,
& is not just a harmony part for the melody of "Scarborough".
ghost
>So if you follow their arguments of what is and isn't fair, it
>would be Nic Jones and Martin Carthy would be the bad guys for
>copyrighting a trad song to begin with.
Nope; neither Jones nor Carthy copyrighted the trad songs.
They copyrighted their guitar arrangements of trad songs.
And, from reports I've read of the lawsuit, Carthy was at least
just as upset that Simon had copyrighted the trad song itself as that
Simon had also nicked Carthy's arrangement of it.
Martin Grossman
ghost wrote:
> Does Dylan do the
> >arrangement note-for-note from his sources?
>
> Dylan's lifting of Nic Jones' arrangement of "Canadee-I-O"
> is almost note-for-note. You can easily get the recordings of both
> & make your own comparisons.
I made the comparison and don't agree that it's "almost note-for-note."
Dylan "guitar arrangement -- and I'm told that's what Nic copyrighted --
is quite different. Dylan's phrasing is quite different, and the tune
(to my ear anyway) is slightly different in each case.
Marty Grossman
>
> >Who BTW wrote the
> >Canticle, a seemingly important part of the Simon song? Did the
> >source for the song write that?
>
> I don't know who wrote the arrangement of "Canticle" but it wasn't
> part of Carthy's suit of Simon & was never in contest. Of course its
> an important part of the whole piece, but its a seperate, although
> simultaneously played continuous part, has a complete melody of its own,
> & is not just a harmony part for the melody of "Scarborough".
--
Irwin Silber
was "right" or "wrong" revolves around ownership of an arrangement of a
song. Implicit in some of the discussion is the idea that there is
something unsavory about copyrighting materi al -- especially material
deriving from works in the public domain. Let me speak up in favor of
copyrights.
A copyright is an extremely important legal device affording protection
to creative work. Without it, authors, song-writers, etc. are
completely at the mercy of publishers and record companies who have
every incentive to minimize payments to the creators of the works. Most
of us would agree, I think, that the author of a book or the writer of
an original song should have an ownership right in his or her creation
and should be afforded legal protection for their work. That's what a
copyright does.
However, a copyright is of limited duration. According to current law,
it remains in force for the life of the author plus 50 years. After
that time, it goes into the public domain, meaning that anyone is free
to do anything with that work without havin g to get permission from or
pay anything.
Most works in the public domain are actually the work of known persons
where the time restrictions have run out. Thus, anyone can produce or
publish a Shakespearean play, a Beethoven symphony or a Mark Twain
story.
At the same time, a new anthology of the works of Mark Twain can be
copyrighted. How is that possible. The copyright law recognizes that
the organization of a work may itself be a creative effort and therefore
subject to a legitimate ownership claim. F or instance, my son Fred and
I put together a book called "The Folksinger's Wordbook." Most of the
songs in the book come from the public domain. But the organization of
that book, the various categories in which the songs are grouped, any
introductory notes to the songs, etc. constitute original material.
This is the basis for obtaining a copyright on that book. By the same
token, however, my copyright does not prevent anyone from doing whatever
they want with the public domain material in the book.
On the issue of musical arrangements, the same principle applies. A
musical arrangement is a creative effort and can be copyrighted. But in
order to claim ownership in a legal sense, the formal process of
copyrighting it must be followed. In some of th e cases cited in this
discussion, a person has supposedly created an arrangement for a song
but has not copyrighted it. However, it may still be considered
property so long as it has not been put into print or recorded. The
only way to determine the leg itimacy of the claim to ownership is
through the legal process; that is, the owner will have to challenge
someone else's use of the material as a violation of ownership. They
will then have to prove that they created the arrangement and that it
existed b efore another person came along and made their claim to
ownership. But in the case of an arrangement of a song in the public
domain, someone -- a judge or an arbitrator -- will have to determine
whether the second person's arrangement is clearly taken fr om or based
substantially on the first person's creative work. While this is often
difficult to prove, it is not impossible. Music publishers go through
this process regularly.
It may be quite admirable for someone to write a new verse to a
traditional song, for instance, and allow it to go into print without
making a legal claim to ownership. In such cases, the law will assume,
however, that the creator wanted his/her work to g o into the public
domain.
Ever since folksongs developed some commercial value, there have been
many disputes over copyright claims where at least some of the material
was in the public domain. There have been instances in which
traditional folk songs have been credited to "autho rs" who were nothing
but fictional people invented by publishers. While, these publishers
might have had a legitimate claim on owning their own version of such a
song -- adding a verse, changing some words, a musical arrangement --
there is no doubt that it was deceitful to claim authorship. The only
way to challenge such claims legally is by ignoring the pseudo-claim and
refusing to pay anyone claiming absolute ownership of the song in any
version except for the one they copyrighted.
One last word. What I have written above is an extremely simple --
perhaps simplistic -- summary of key points in copyright law which is
itself much more complicated. Don't use my summary if you're planning
or defending a law suit. Get a copyright lawy er for that. But in so
far as the kind of debate running through this thread is concerned,
perhaps this will cool some tempers.
Irwin Silber
Stephen Suffet
>
[Most of excellent essay snipped.]
> There have been instances in which traditional folk songs have been
> credited to "authors" who were nothing but fictional people invented
> by publishers. While, these publishers might have had a legitimate
> claim on owning their own version of such a song -- adding a verse,
> changing some words, a musical arrangement -- there is no doubt that
> it was deceitful to claim authorship. The only way to challenge such
> claims legally is by ignoring the pseudo-claim and refusing to pay
> anyone claiming absolute ownership of the song in any version except
> for the one they copyrighted.
>
> One last word. What I have written above is an extremely simple --
> perhaps simplistic -- summary of key points in copyright law which is
> itself much more complicated. Don't use my summary if you're planning
> or defending a law suit. Get a copyright lawy er for that. But in so
> far as the kind of debate running through this thread is concerned,
> perhaps this will cool some tempers.
>
Greetings:
Thank you, Irwin, for making it all so clear!
Could challenging what Irwin calls a "pseudo-claim" above be more
bother than paying the licensing fee to a claimant? I know one recording
artist who put "Danny Boy" on an album, and allowed the composer's fee
go to a publisher (Oscar Fox, Ltd., I believe) who claimed copyright
ownership. My own copy of the song says "Music based on a traditional
air" and "Words: Frederic Weatherly." The copyright date is 1913.
I am not certain what the old (pre-1978) copyright law was in the
UK, but in the USA a copyright lasted 28 years and could be renewed for
another 28, making a total of 56 years. If British law were similar,
then the copyright on "Danny Boy" expired in 1969. Even if the UK back
then followed the rule the USA enacted in 1978 -- life plus 50 years --
the copyright would have ended in 1079, as Weatherly died in 1929.
The fee may only amount to a few cents per album -- perhaps not
worthwhile for one performer to challenge -- but just imagine how much
is taken in world-wide each year by the publisher who claims the "Danny
Boy" copyright!
Regards,
Steve
Abby Sale
>If it's a traditional song, why would it not be in the pubic domain? Did
>Jones copyright the melody? I am absolutely sure I heard this particular
>melody long before -- at least as far back as the early 60s, if not
>before.
>
I misstyped. Sorry for confusion. I meant
3) It does NOT appear to be a traditional tune. Although the song,
itself, is very old.
That is, the text is old - PD - but I can't identify the melody. I
believe _Penguin Eggs_ came on the market in 1980. It doesn't give any
particular credit for any of the tunes. Just "trad. arr N Jones." The
(now, sadly only occasional) poster here, Majic is a friend of Jones' and
has asked him for me if he has any recollection of where he got the tune.
He doesn't. One of Life's Great Unsolved Mysteries.
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- ---
Janet M. Ryan
>
> On Tue, 01 Jun 1999 11:18:16 -0700, Martin Grossman <t...@slip.net> wrote:
>
>>If it's a traditional song, why would it not be in the pubic domain?
>>Did Jones copyright the melody? I am absolutely sure I heard this
>>particular melody long before -- at least as far back as the early 60s,
>>if not before.
>
>I misstyped. Sorry for confusion. I meant
>3) It does NOT appear to be a traditional tune. Although the song,
>itself, is very old.
>
>That is, the text is old - PD - but I can't identify the melody. I
>believe _Penguin Eggs_ came on the market in 1980. It doesn't give any
>particular credit for any of the tunes. Just "trad. arr N Jones." The
>(now, sadly only occasional) poster here, Majic is a friend of Jones'
>and has asked him for me if he has any recollection of where he got the
>tune. He doesn't. One of Life's Great Unsolved Mysteries.
Hmmmmm...then it would seem that the criticisms of Dylan ripping him off,
in this instance at least, are unfounded wouldn't it?
I have no direct personal knowledge of Dylan or Jones. But judging
by what's been said here--and we have some pretty formidable sources
posting to this thread who personally know both parties--it would seem
there isn't much of a case for Jones. If Jones in fact listed the tune
*and* lyrics as "trad arr by Jones" on his album, and doesn't remember
his source for it, then Dylan is under no obligation to pay him for his
arrangement, unless plagairism can be proved. And of course, each side
is certain God is with them in this case. There are some who feel the
arrangement is the same, others who say it isn't--and people both sides
of the argument are musicians with a lot of expertise, whose judgments
most of us trust.
I agree it was definitely bad form for The Bob not to credit Jones as the
source (i.e. where he heard the song) of the song. But to credit someone
as the source of the song is not the same as having a legal and moral
obligation to pay royalties to someone for (re?)arranging a song that the
source themselves credits as being traditional, and therefore in the
public domain.
I admit I don't think much of Dylan as an artist myself. Not because of
the Jones controversy, but because of what I feel are the disingenuous
ways he represents himself generally. And because I don't think he's any
better a songwriter and musician than a whole lot of his contemporaries
(who have carried him musically, IMO). And because he can't sing. ;-)
But frankly, this argument seems to boil down to money. Both Jones and
Dylan were/are professional recording artists. Money isn't a concern for
Dylan, it is for Jones. Having lived with a disabled partner for over a
decade, I certainly understand the devastation that accompanies a man
being disabled, and no longer being able to earn a living--and being the
partner upon whom much of the responsibility for maintaining the
family then falls. So I hope folks don't think I'm making a specious
argument in that regard. I know full well what it means to lose the
income, as well as what the personal toll the disability takes on the
disabled person and their loved ones.
But let's be honest here. No successful folk artist can reasonably
expect to earn in their lifetime what a successful pop artist earns, no
matter how much folkies love to piss and moan about that fact. It
doesn't mean that every time a pop star covers a trad tune/song they
heard from a folkie, the folkie should automatically assume they should
be monetarily compensated for it, because the pop star has more money
than they do and "can afford it."
The more I read in this thread (and I've followed the whole thing), the
more I've felt this whole argument is about professional begrudgery
between folk and pop musicians, and to a certain extent, between British
and American musicians. I understand how much Nic Jones' loved ones
would like to see Nic not suffer anymore. But it isn't within Dylan's
power to relieve or redeem Jones' and Jones' family's suffering. That
isn't how it works in the grander scheme of life. Or as a friend of ours
who had been both rich and poor said before she died of cancer at age 40
just a few years ago--if your only problem is money, you don't really
have a problem. Jones' suffering isn't one money can fix, I'm afraid.
Nor is there anything Dylan can do for him. Maybe having been there
himself, Dylan knows that, and chooses not to be patronizing about the
whole thing, as I feel a few self-righteous (though well intended) folks
from the Jones camp seem to be.
I mean c'mon--would anything Dylan did at this point be meaningful to the
Jones camp anyway? Isn't he damned if he does, damned if he doesn't?
As much as I might dislike Dylan professionally, he is still a human
being himself, who suffered the debilitating effects of a traffic
accident in his own life too. I'm guessing he too is living with chronic
pain every day as a result of the injuries he sustained in his accident.
He has a family he apparently loves and has cared pretty well for.
I don't think Dylan is the monster some have portrayed him to be, even if
he hasn't shown as much integrity professionally as some of us might like
to see. I have a much bigger problem with artists like Paul Simon--not
for ripping off Martin Carthy, but for violating the South African
artist's boycott so arrogantly. I mean, people need to put things in
perspective a bit realistically, both in terms of what truly harms
another human being, and what can truly be done to help. In the case of
Simon and the South African boycott, large numbers of human beings were
effected by the international boycott. It helped to bring apartheid
down.
As I said--it was shoddy of Dylan not to credit Jones as the source for
the song, but has Dylan's failure to do that actually harmed Jones? That
doesn't appear to be the case, if what we have seen posted to this thread
is true enough.
Janet Ryan
Martin Grossman
the arrangement, if it had been his. Seems logical to me.
Marty Grossman
Abby Sale wrote:
>
> On Tue, 01 Jun 1999 11:18:16 -0700, Martin Grossman <t...@slip.net> wrote:
>
> >If it's a traditional song, why would it not be in the pubic domain? Did
> >Jones copyright the melody? I am absolutely sure I heard this particular
> >melody long before -- at least as far back as the early 60s, if not
> >before.
> >
> I misstyped. Sorry for confusion. I meant
>
> 3) It does NOT appear to be a traditional tune. Although the song,
> itself, is very old.
>
> That is, the text is old - PD - but I can't identify the melody. I
> believe _Penguin Eggs_ came on the market in 1980. It doesn't give any
> particular credit for any of the tunes. Just "trad. arr N Jones." The
> (now, sadly only occasional) poster here, Majic is a friend of Jones' and
> has asked him for me if he has any recollection of where he got the tune.
> He doesn't. One of Life's Great Unsolved Mysteries.
>
> -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- ---
> I am Abby Sale - abby...@orlinter.com (That's in Orlando)
--
Stephen Suffet
>
>. I have a much bigger problem with artists like Paul Simon--not
> for ripping off Martin Carthy, but for violating the South African
> artist's boycott so arrogantly. I mean, people need to put things in
> perspective a bit realistically, both in terms of what truly harms
> another human being, and what can truly be done to help. In the case
> of Simon and the South African boycott, large numbers of human beings
> were effected by the international boycott. It helped to bring
> apartheid down.
>
Greetings:
Unlike Cher and some other performers who violated the boycott of
South Africa, Paul Simon did not play Sun City or any of the other big
resorts for his own aggrandisement. What Paul did was work with black
South African "township" musicians to give their voice a much wider
audience than it previously had. To do so he worked with them in both
the RSA and the USA. As a result our world is a much, much richer place.
I believe the ANC later gave Paul a limited dispensation from the
boycott that it had originated, but that other groups anti-apartheid did
not accept it. Am I right or wrong about that?
Regards,
Steve
Peter Stone Brown
>
> Janet M. Ryan wrote:
> >
> > for ripping off Martin Carthy, but for violating the South African
> > artist's boycott so arrogantly. I mean, people need to put things in
> > perspective a bit realistically, both in terms of what truly harms
> > another human being, and what can truly be done to help. In the case
> > of Simon and the South African boycott, large numbers of human beings
> > were effected by the international boycott. It helped to bring
> > apartheid down.
> >
>
>
> Unlike Cher and some other performers who violated the boycott of
> South Africa, Paul Simon did not play Sun City or any of the other big
> resorts for his own aggrandisement. What Paul did was work with black
> South African "township" musicians to give their voice a much wider
> audience than it previously had. To do so he worked with them in both
> the RSA and the USA. As a result our world is a much, much richer place.
>
> I believe the ANC later gave Paul a limited dispensation from the
> boycott that it had originated, but that other groups anti-apartheid did
> not accept it. Am I right or wrong about that?
>
> Regards,
> Steve
I believe you are correct.
--
"Anyone can fill his life up with things
he can see but he just cannot touch." --Bob Dylan
Peter Stone Brown
e-mail: pet...@erols.com
http://www.tangible-music.com/peterstonebrown/
Janet M. Ryan
>
> Janet M. Ryan wrote:
> >
> > for ripping off Martin Carthy, but for violating the South African
> > artist's boycott so arrogantly. I mean, people need to put things in
> > perspective a bit realistically, both in terms of what truly harms
> > another human being, and what can truly be done to help. In the case
> > of Simon and the South African boycott, large numbers of human beings
> > were effected by the international boycott. It helped to bring
> > apartheid down.
> >
>
>
> Unlike Cher and some other performers who violated the boycott of
> South Africa, Paul Simon did not play Sun City or any of the other big
> resorts for his own aggrandisement.
But Sun City wasn't the issue to begin with. The artists boycott was not
to play *anywhere* in South Africa. The artists boycott was part and
parcel of the much larger economic boycott of the country. While the
money involved in the artists boycott was a paltry amount in terms of
what artists performances contributed to the local economy in comparison
to other sectors of the South African economy, the visibility of
international artists participating/violating the boycott held tremendous
sway in the international arena in ways the less glamorous, more mundance
businesses could never hope to bring to the anti-apartheid cause. That
is what made the highly visible, public participation of artists so
important to the success of the boycott in those other areas. It was
only when a lot of highly visible musicians, artists, writers, world
leaders, etc. signed on to the boycott that it became strong enough to
hold the CEO's and shareholders' feet to the fire, and keep so many
corporations, businesses and countries from doing business with the South
Africans. And make no mistake--the boycott *is* what brought the
apartheid govenrment down--of that there is no doubt.
At the time, many people involved in the anti-apartheid struggle both in
South Africa and outside it felt that Paul Simon was in fact taking a
highly public stand as a renegade for self-aggrandising purposes--to
revive his career in a very visible way that attracted publicity for him.
His career had been dead in the water since the break-up with Garfunkel.
It was seen by most as a very cynical manipulation. At the time it
happened, the wall of solidarity behind the boycott could just as easily
have crumbled instead of holding together--it was quite fragile. The
boycott's effectiveness is unprecedented in the hisory of the world for
Christ sake. And it may remain so for centuries again, for all we
know. Too bad Paul Simon was so narcissistic and egotistical that he
couldn't see that vision of the world changing as it did before our very
eyes--its his loss, truly. His decision to violate the boycott was a
soulless act, IMO. Such is nature of "star" power on the psyche and
soul, I guess.
>What Paul did was work with black South African "township" musicians to
>give their voice a much wider audience than it previously had.
Yup. Thought he was God in fact, and that he was therefore justified (or
perhaps he thought he was "chosen" perhaps?) to violate the boycott,
just so he could give a handful of musicians "a voice." At the time Paul
Simon choose to intervene, South African voices were being heard loud and
clear around the world--they didn't need him to help them along by
violating the boycott that was going to free them from their
oppression. Hardly a good trade-off, unless of course those musicians
didn't care what happened to the majority of South Africans either, and
were only in it for their own gain as well.
> To do so he worked with them in both the RSA and the USA. As a result
>our world is a much, much richer place.
I ain't buyin' that argument. We aren't richer for our contact with
South African music because of Paul Simon. We are richer for our
contact with South African music because of the South African
musicians and non-South African musicians who *didn't* violate the
boycott. They helped to free all the voices in South Africa. Not
just a chosen few.
I'm eternally thankful that artists like Paul Simon, Rod Steward, Queen,
Linda Ronstadt, et al who did violate the boycott didn't bring it down,
and condemn South Africans to who knows how many more years and
generations of apartheid. But lets get it straight here--they don't
deserve any thanks for that. Those who held the boycott together in
spite of them deserve our eternal thanks. The world is much richer for
bringing down apartheid than it is for South African pop music.
>
> I believe the ANC later gave Paul a limited dispensation from the
> boycott that it had originated, but that other groups anti-apartheid
>did not accept it. Am I right or wrong about that?
>
So many bizarre ideas have come out of the end of apartheid like this. I
never heard that the ANC granted Paul Simon any "special dispensation"
for violating the boycott, or any other artists or company that violated
the boycott for that matter. The ANC is the organization that was
responsible for keeping the international boycott in place for as long as
it did. And it was *VERY* shaky and fragile--for a long time it looked
as though the boycott would be broken--and Paul Simon's antics came at
just that time when it looked like the boycott couldn't hold together.
And BTW, just what does a "limited compensation" from the ANC for
violating the boycott look like anyway? What is it? An official
proclamantion signed by Mandela or something?
I had someone tell me that Nelson Mandela had denounced armed struggle
too...doesn't mean its true, though does it?
In fact, on a tv program in Ireland, when Mandela went there to try and
help get the peace process moving some years back, he was being
interviewed by Bob Geldof. Geldof went fuckin' ballistic when Mandela
not only refused to condemn the IRA, but referred to them as one of the
ANC & South Africa's strongest European allies, and refused to say they
(the IRA) were wrong for engaging in armed struggle. This was after
Mandela became president, mind you. So where people get these crazy
ideas that the ANC threw all their moral convictions out the window once
they brought apartheid down...well, damned if I know where people get
such crazy ideas from.
It would be totally beyond reason that the ANC, who worked so long and so
hard to keep the boycott in place, would decide that Paul Simon was
really an angel after all, and grant him dispensation from...what
exactly? Their wrath and furor with him for violating the boycott?
Don't forget--their wrath and furor with him was very well known
internationally in human rights and anti-apartheid circles. They didn't
disguise their displeasure in the least, nor did they try and dress it up
in pseudo-liberal acceptability by saying it was nice he gave some South
African musicians "a voice." Quite the contrary. They accused him of
exploiting South Africans as a means of reviving his stalled music
career--didn't mince words about it at all.
There is a whole lot of revisionist history like this being espoused by
liberals in regards to South Africa. Thank God it didn't begin to take
hold before apartheid fell.
Simon was so, so wrong to do what he did. There is no forgiving his
actions as far as I'm concerned. What's done is done, and no one can
undo it now of course. I'm not saying he should be punished, or anything
like that. But I believe he always needs to be held accountable for what
he did. There was no excuse for it. None. Not then, not now, not
ever. He chose where to place himself in regards to South African
history. Now he's got to live with it.
Janet Ryan
Peter Stone Brown
>
> His career had been dead in the water since the break-up with Garfunkel.
Not true in the slightest. Simon had several hits on his own after
breaking up with Garfunkel.
Janet M. Ryan
>
> Stephen Suffet wrote:
>>I believe the ANC later gave Paul a limited dispensation from the
>> boycott that it had originated, but that other groups anti-apartheid
>>did not accept it. Am I right or wrong about that?
> I believe you are correct.
Well, what evidence do ye all have of this ANC "special dispensation"?
I'm not trying to be contrary here. If I'm wrong about this, I'd
genuinely like to know the specifics of this dispensation granted to Paul
Simon.
It would be totally out of character for the ANC to grant a dispensation
to anybody, not just Paul Simon. Or are you guys saying that the ANC
granted a "limited dispensation" as Steve called it, to all the artists
who violated the boycott? Did they extend a limited compensation to
all the companies and countries who continued to do business with the
South African apartheid regime throughout the boycott years too, and I
just never heard about it, perhaps?
Still, if the ANC did actually do such a dramatic about-face, there must
be some official evidence of it?
Janet Ryan
Janet M. Ryan
>
> Janet M. Ryan wrote:
> >
>
> > His career had been dead in the water since the break-up with Garfunkel.
>
> breaking up with Garfunkel.
>
OK--fine, whatever...But I replied to your post, replying to Steve's, in
which you said the ANC had granted some sort of special dispensation to
Simon for violating the boycott. I did it respectfully and genuinely.
Now I'll ask again, on what evidence are you basing your claim that the
ANC gave a "limited dispensation" (as Steve called it) to Paul Simon for
violating the boycott against the South African apartheid government?
Janet Ryan
Stephen Suffet
Janet:
I posed a question based upon what I recall from the "Graceland" era.
I did not make a statement of fact.
I believe Paul Simon and Roy Halee went to Jo'burg in '85 in techni-
cal violation of the boycott. But they didn't go so Paul could work the
resorts or give a concert. Instead they went to make contact with black
South African musicians who had caught Paul Simon's attention. Several
of these musicians -- including Joseph Shabalala whom Paul actually met
for the first time in London and who was very active in the anti-apart-
heid resistance movement -- contributed greatly to "Graceland," which
was recorded in part in the RSA.
After the "Graceland" album became a hit in 1986, Paul Simon and Roy
Halee brought Joseph Shabalala and his group, Ladysmith Black Mambazo,
to the USA. It was some time afterward, I recall reading in the papers,
that Paul Simon got limited approval from the ANC to return to the RSA
so he could continue working with the South African musicians whom he
had brought to a wide audience. I also recall reading that other anti-
apartheid organizations were neither so flexible nor so forgiving, and
protested Paul Simon's return to the RSA.
Once again, I am _not_ making a definitive statement. Maybe someone
else could provide the specifics.
One thing I am certain of is this: Paul Simon played a major role in
exposing people around the world to the music of black South Africa. For
that he should be honored, not condemned.
Regards again,
Steve
Irwin Silber
sure you're right. It's not enough to show that "Danny Boy" had been
published prior to the copyright date given by the claim holder. You'd
also have to show that your publication or recording was different from
that on which the copyright is based. In other words, that your version
of "Danny Boy" derived from material in the public domain and did not
use whatever the claim holder had added to the song. I don't know what
British law specifies. I think it may be longer than life of the author
plus 50 years.
The problem confronting the claim holder is that if he allows you to get
away with a violation, the courts may rule in a subsequent suit that
another violator of his copyright could have learned the song from your
publication without the claim-holder's co pyright notice on it and that
his failure to act against you leaves the second violator in the clear.
On the other hand, if he initiates a suit against you and loses, his
copyright claim may become void. The court may also rule that your
version of "Dan ny Boy" substantially differs from his in respect to
anything he may claim he added to the song.
Sound convoluted? It is -- until you get down to actual cases.
One of the most egregious cases of pseudo-claiming of folk songs was a
book called, "Folk Sing" published in 1959 by Hollis Music. Hollis was
a music company which had obtained publishing rights to many songs
performed and, in some cases, written in whole or part, by The Weavers
and Woody Guthrie among others. As I noted in commentary in Sing Out!
at the time, it was -- as songbooks go -- a pretty good collection. In
fact, most of the songs were either traditional folk songs or old
popular songs. But instead of th e credits you might ordinarily expect
to find, almost every song in the book was identified as having been
"adapted and edited with new material" by Jessie Cavanagh and Albert
Stanton, clearly two extremely prolific songsmiths who had never before
made an appearance in life. They were, of course, totally fictitious
characters.
Since this is done all the time in the music business, none of this
would have merited anything more than a wry comment on the absurdity of
trying to ascertain what Messrs. Cavanagh and Stanton had added to songs
like Auld Lang Syne, Bicycle Built for Two , When Johnny Comes Marching
Home, The Minstrel Boy and scores of others.
But some of the songs carried a claim which evoked more than ironic
amusement. "Everybody Loves Saturday Night," a Nigerian song which had
grown out of the anti-colonial movement in the early fifties that was
subsequently popularized and expanded on by P ete Seeger, bore the
legend "words and music by Paul Campbell." Mr. Campbell was also
credited with having written, in conjunction with Joel Newman, "Midnight
Special," a song generally associated with Leadbelly. In a subsequent
mass market paperback ed ition of "Folk Sing" put out by Berkeley Books,
the mysterious Paul Campbell shows up again, this time as the author of
"Darling Corey," "I Ride an Old Paint," "The Devil and the Farmer's
Wife," "When the Saints Go Marching In," "Children Go Where I Send Thee"
and the great blues masterpiece, "Easy Rider." The odd thing about this
last set of claims is that in the first edition of "Folk Sing," all
these songs had carried the credit "Adaptation and Arrangement by Ronnie
Gilbert, Lee Hays, Fred Hellerman a nd Pete Seeger," collectively known,
of course, as The Weavers. As you've probably figured out by now, Paul
Campbell was a pseudonym for The Weavers. I was later told by Harold
Leventhal, the Weavers' manager, that the form of these credits were
made wi thout The Weavers' permission. The Weavers subsequently put out
their own songbook (published by Harpers) which was faultless in its
handling of the copyright questions, making no unwarranted claims,.
identifying public domain material as such and specif ically describing
the changes made by The Weavers in their adaptations and arrangements.
Just how widespread the practice of pseudo-claiming authorship of
traditional songs was can be gleaned from the following:
- On a Burl Ives record album cover, Ives is credited with having
"written" such songs as "Go 'Way from My Window," "Two Maidens Went
Milking," "Wanderin'," and "Henry Martin." (Few people grasped the
irony of the claim to authorship of "Two Maidens Went Milking," a song
which was one of the mainstays in the concert repertoire of Richard
Dyer-Bennet who had been blacklisted as the result of Burl Ives having
named him as a Communist before the Un-American Activities Committee.")
- The Kingston Trio claimed they were the authors of such songs as
"Goober Peas" (a Confederate Civil War classic), "Worried Man Blues,"
"Shady Grove" and "Blow Ye Winds of the Morning," among others.
- It will come as a surprise to many that Jimmie Rodgers wrote "The
Riddle Song," "Waltzing Matilda," "Froggie Went a-Courtin" and "Lord
Randall" while The Tarriers wrote "Swing Low Sweet Chariot," "Pick a
Bale of Cotton," and "Hush Little Baby."
The justification for all these spurious claims? Income from royalties.
The sad part of it all is that, while memorializing themselves in
history with a pack of lies, it is doubtful that any of these claimants
made any more money than if they had simply stayed at the adapted and
arranged level; all they really did was to make themselves look like a
bunch of amateur thieves trying to loot the public domain. But they did
confuse lots of people. And by denying legitimate recognition to the
contributions to our folk heritage made by people like Leadbelly and
others, they performed an injustice which, though largely ineffectual,
remains a blot on them and a music industry unable to see beyond the
next fast buck.
Janet M. Ryan
> I posed a question based upon what I recall from the "Graceland"
>era. I did not make a statement of fact.
>
> I believe Paul Simon and Roy Halee went to Jo'burg in '85 in techni-
> cal violation of the boycott.
That too is my recollection.
>But they didn't go so Paul could work the resorts or give a concert.
Nonetheless, he violated the boycott, and drew the wratch of the ANC
leadership, both in RSA & in exile, upon him. It was his choice, and at
the time, a shocking one indeed.
>Instead they went to make contact with black South African musicians who
>had caught Paul Simon's attention.
And you don't consider that to be self-serving in light of what was at
stake?
>Several of these musicians -- including Joseph Shabalala whom Paul
>actually met for the first time in London and who was very active in
>the anti-apartheid resistance movement -- contributed greatly to
>"Graceland," which was recorded in part in the RSA.
>
And that was a big part of the controversy. There was much ill will
created among the South African musicians still residing in South Africa
who opposed what Simon, et al did, as well as among the South African
musicians in exile who opposed what Simon, et al did. To say Simon had
the support of a couple of South Africans who opposed apartheid is not
the same as saying he had the tacit support of the ANC to violate the
boycott. PLENTY of musicians opposed what they did.
> After the "Graceland" album became a hit in 1986, Paul Simon and Roy
> Halee brought Joseph Shabalala and his group, Ladysmith Black Mambazo,
> to the USA. It was some time afterward, I recall reading in the papers,
> that Paul Simon got limited approval from the ANC to return to the RSA
> so he could continue working with the South African musicians whom he
> had brought to a wide audience.
I think the date would be signficant in this regard. In 1986, the ANC
didn't have the power to "allow" Simon or anyone else into the
country--they were at war with the South African apartheid regime. So I
question the legitimacy of your assertion. Not casting aspersions on you
or your integrity, Steve. I know you are a good man. But a good man can
be wrong.
> I also recall reading that other anti-apartheid organizations were
>neither so flexible nor so forgiving, and protested Paul Simon's return
>to the RSA.
Oh c'mon. You are trying to make an argument--and a rather damning one
at that--based upon "what you recall reading" over a decade ago, without
offering up any proof to back up your claims.
I'm sorry Steve, but the way you are presenting your argument is somewhat
specious and disingenuous. I'm guessing your motive for doing that is
because you like Simon, and think he did nothing wrong by violating the
South African boycott.
>
> Once again, I am _not_ making a definitive statement. Maybe someone
> else could provide the specifics.
>
Well Steve, if you're not making a definitive statement, and I accept
that--in your original post, you phrased your recollection as question,
didn't state it as a fact. But until I see some proof of what you are
claiming, I don't see why I should change my thinking about what Simon
did. He violated the boycott. The boycott was the best hope for freedom
for millions of people. He was in a position of power and influence, and
by violating the boycott, he thumbed his nose at millions of South
Africans and people around the world working to bring the
apartheid regime down. He put himself in the center of it of his own
free will--no one made him go to South Africa and do what he did. He
knew full well what the ramifications of his actions were, and he did it
anyway. He wasn't engaging in some sort of innocuous cultural exchange.
> One thing I am certain of is this: Paul Simon played a major role
>in exposing people around the world to the music of black South Africa.
>For that he should be honored, not condemned.
This attitude sickens me Steve. It honestly sickens me.
But I remain respectfully yours,
Janet Ryan
amers
Graceland was recorded, and we never did get into the whole boycott
(artistic or economic) in much depth either at school or home. Reading news
of his boycott-breaking, for whatever reason he did it, saddens me. All I
could think of was that as a public figure, he must know that any publicity
is good publicity....and breaking the boycott no doubt generated publicity
(although obviously not enough to affect a third-grader) for his album.
-Amy
Stephen Suffet
>
> Stephen Suffet wrote:
>
.
>
> > One thing I am certain of is this: Paul Simon played a major
> > role in exposing people around the world to the music of black South
> > Africa. For that he should be honored, not condemned.
>
> This attitude sickens me Steve. It honestly sickens me.
>
> But I remain respectfully yours,
>
Dear Janet,
My two sentence above are my opinion, and I feel it is better that I
express it than hide it. It was not my intention to sicken you. Sorry.
We both agree that Paul Simon's 1985 trip to South Africa to do
studio work was in violation of the cultural boycott. On the whole, how-
ever, I still believe that the "Graceland" album, which was a direct
product of that work, did more to oppose apartheid than would have been
accomplished had Paul Simon abided by the boycott. I know we disagree
about that. I certainly do respect your view.
I am not trying to be disingenuous about my recollections. I really
do believe the ANC gave Paul some kind of limited OK to appear in South
Africa, possibly in the early 1990s, after having opposed his earlier
visits. Obviously the ANC had nothing but moral authority (which was
rather substantial) to grant or deny such permission. But I acknowledge
that I might be wrong.
Regards once again,
Steve
G. M. Watson
South African musicians and musical culture by bringing them before a world
audience, we need only examine the extent of the labors he has performed on
their behalf since "Graceland" sold however many millions of copies it did.
Zip, in other words. He sure has continued to boost Olodum and the rest of
Brazilian music, too, since "Rhythm of the Saints", hasn't he? And, of
course, farther back there was Urubamba and "El Condor Pasa"... How many
different ways are there to say "wealthy dilettante"? In what far-flung
corner of the globe will our wandering minstrel seek inspiration next? Bali
and its gamelan music, perhaps?
In contrast, David Byrne, for instance, has made ongoing efforts to
propagate interest in some of the musics he's borrowed from... as witness
the excellent series of anthology CDs of Brazilian pop music he produced and
had released. That's the difference between non-self-aggrandizing sincerity
and simply trendily using someone else's culture as a flavor-of-the-moment
to make yourself sound and look good. That puts you on about the same
artistic level as Ed Sullivan.
----------
In article <37589B...@worldnet.att.net>, Stephen Suffet
Stephen Suffet
>
> That's the difference between non-self-aggrandizing sincerity
> and simply trendily using someone else's culture as a flavor-of-the-
> the same artistic level as Ed Sullivan.
Greetings:
At the risk of stirring up a hornets' nest let me state my bias up
front: I believe Paul Simon is the single most creative and talented pop
musician to emerge from the Anglophonic world in the past 50 years. I
see that not everyone shares this view. :-)
Regards,
Steve
Abby Sale
wrote:
>there isn't much of a case for Jones. If Jones in fact listed the tune
>*and* lyrics as "trad arr by Jones" on his album, and doesn't remember
>his source for it, then Dylan is under no obligation to pay him for his
>arrangement, unless plagairism can be proved.
>I agree it was definitely bad form for The Bob not to credit Jones as the
It's kind of indirect. Can't find any _other_ source for the tune,
therefore it's Jones'. Well, that doesn't fly but it should. In this
case only.
>Having lived with a disabled partner for over a
>decade, I certainly understand the devastation that accompanies a man
>being disabled, and no longer being able to earn a living--and being the
>partner upon whom much of the responsibility for maintaining the
>family then falls. So I hope folks don't think I'm making a specious
>argument in that regard
OK. That certainly earns the right to a thoughtful opinion. It does.
This is one of those rare cases for me that logic & feeling don't agree.
I agree with all Janet says about Dylan & Jones. But there's a
"wrongness" to it. An unfairness. We, the jury, award Jones compensation
even though he may not (or may - what do I know?) be technically entitled
to it.
Sorry about that.
Janet M. Ryan
>
> "Janet M. Ryan" wrote:
>
>>*and* lyrics as "trad arr by Jones" on his album, and doesn't remember
>>his source for it, then Dylan is under no obligation to pay him for his
>>arrangement, unless plagairism can be proved.
Well now wait a minute here, Mr. Editor! The gist of my post was more
ruminating over what I've been reading in the thread, than it was passing
final judgment as official arbiter or something. I feel the Dylan camp
was arguing a pretty compelling case. And as you probably have noticed
Abby, I am not The Bob's biggest fan in his homeland here. ;-)
Then I said:
>
> >I agree it was definitely bad form for The Bob not to credit Jones as
And Abby wrote:
> It's kind of indirect. Can't find any _other_ source for the tune,
> therefore it's Jones'. Well, that doesn't fly but it should. In this
> case only.
Hmmmm...you mean, you think this case was the exception to the rule?
That because of Jones' life circumstances, Dylan should have financially
compensated him as if Jones had composed the tune?
>>Having lived with a disabled partner for over a
>>decade, I certainly understand the devastation that accompanies a man
>>being disabled, and no longer being able to earn a living--and being
>>the partner upon whom much of the responsibility for maintaining the
>>family then falls. So I hope folks don't think I'm making a specious
>>argument in that regard
>
> OK. That certainly earns the right to a thoughtful opinion. It does.
Well, I wasn't trying to pull rank or anything. I really was trying to
just raise the point that with disabled folks, there is a real *wince*
factor with patronizing attitude of the poor cripple/inspirational
cripple thing, y'know? Same way with the "Save the Children" appeals
with the dirty, poor kid in the picture with a tear in her eye...
Most folks involved in the fight for equal rights for disabled people
would not agree that Jones should be compensated because he was disabled
after the fact. Instead, they would argue that all disabled people are
due the entitlements and benefits others in society are entitled to, and
that access, mobility, etc. is what should be focused on so disabled
people can participate fully in society--including finding new ways to
earn a living.
> This is one of those rare cases for me that logic & feeling don't agree.
A good place to be in regards to such a complex, difficult situation
actually, although its a might uncomfortable at times, innit?
> I agree with all Janet says about Dylan & Jones. But there's a
> "wrongness" to it. An unfairness. We, the jury, award Jones
>compensation even though he may not (or may - what do I know?) be
>technically entitled to it.
Another big hmmmmm...
Is the wrongness rooted in the situation between Jones and Dylan as we
perceive it? That's how I felt about it until this thread anyway. And I
agreed with you Abby, that there was something wrong.
But now I'm wondering, is the "something wrong" in our attitudes towards
Jones since he was disabled? Or maybe our desire to believe that money
can fix broken bodies? There is a very dark side to our human nature
regarding disability, and it simply cannot be glossed over when a person
suddenly is disabled. It becomes very much "in your face" whether the
person is disabled from accident or illness, or whether they are born
differently abled. It changes everything in the peoples' lives who are
loved ones of that person too. And you never know what the hell is the
right or the wrong way to feel about things, because most societies have
hidden disabled folks away, and not allowed them to be a part of
mainstream society.
> Sorry about that.
No need to be sorry, I don't think. This thread really made me start
thinking about the Jones/Dylan thing much differently. Probably not such
a bad thing to have happen, is it?
Its not like I have any answers here Abby...
Janet Ryan
Janet M. Ryan
>>>One thing I am certain of is this: Paul Simon played a major
>>>role in exposing people around the world to the music of black South
>>>Africa. For that he should be honored, not condemned.
Then I wrote:
>> This attitude sickens me Steve. It honestly sickens me.
>>
>> But I remain respectfully yours,
Then Steve responded:
>
> Dear Janet,
>
> My two sentence above are my opinion, and I feel it is better that
>I express it than hide it. It was not my intention to sicken you. Sorry.
Steve, of course you should express your opinion rather than hide it. I
would never suggest otherwise. I know your intention was not to offend,
you aren't that kind of person.
That said, I too had to let you know that even though I respect you, your
opinion is one I find profoundly disturbing. As I said in my first post
responding yours, I was guessing you really loved Simon, and thought he
had done nothing wrong by violating the boycott. In another post, you
did come out and say you loved Simon. Please know--I happen to think he
is a wonderful musician...a very gifted and talented human being.
But Steve, the world has seen many very talented and gifted human beings
whose moral character was incredibly wanting, shall we say? And therein
lies the distinction that *I* make--and I'm not saying its one you have
to make. I don't feel Paul Simon's talent excuses the way he behaved in
regards to the South African boycott. He is a grown man, he clearly knew
what he was doing and what the implications for South Africa were if the
boycott was broken. And he chose to go ahead and violate the boycott
anyway. I hold him responsible and accountable for his actions, and I
don't think it is excusable to try and rewrite history, just because I
happen to like a guy's music.
> We both agree that Paul Simon's 1985 trip to South Africa to do
> studio work was in violation of the cultural boycott. On the whole,
>however, I still believe that the "Graceland" album, which was a direct
> product of that work, did more to oppose apartheid than would have been
> accomplished had Paul Simon abided by the boycott. I know we disagree
> about that. I certainly do respect your view.
And this is what sickens me--Paul Simon did nothing to help end
apartheid, unless it was make anonymous contributions to organizations
involved in the war. Whether he did or didn't do that, I don't know.
Paul Simon was in no way associated with the international or South
African anti-apartheid movement before or after Graceland that I am aware
of. He simply took advantage of the international political movement
that many musicians had been working for years--and some for decades--to
reach the level of support international that would allow the ANC to
bring the apartheid government of RSA down, and end apartheid.
Paul Simon had absolutely nothing to do with that, and in fact,
intervened in that process in a way that endangered the momentum built up
by years of political activism by artists involved in that struggle.
> I am not trying to be disingenuous about my recollections. I really
> do believe the ANC gave Paul some kind of limited OK to appear in South
> Africa, possibly in the early 1990s, after having opposed his earlier
> visits. Obviously the ANC had nothing but moral authority (which was
> rather substantial) to grant or deny such permission. But I acknowledge
> that I might be wrong.
>
I'm not saying Paul Simon didn't go to South Africa and perform. My
recollection is that he did. My recollection is also that the ANC knew
it was powerless to stop him and the South African musicians he had
performing with him. Or from many South Africans attending the concerts.
However, I have no recollection that the ANC approved his doing the
concerts, recording in RSA or anything else. It is my recollection they
stood their ground, never flinched once, and remained 100% opposed to
Simon's actions in relation to the boycott.
Simon put the ANC, the people of South Africa, and the international
human rights community in a very untenable position doing what he did.
He should be soundly condemned for that, IMO. And certainly what he did
needs to be remembered--but remembered correctly, and not romanticized.
And as to his deserving some honors for what he did, well...I'm not one
for honoring such behavior myself, no matter how good the musician.
Janet Ryan
G. M. Watson
----------
In article <3758B1...@worldnet.att.net>, Stephen Suffet
<Suf...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
Somewhat showoff response:
Believe it or not, I generally try to avoid getting into arguments about
matters of personal taste when the individual presenting the argument has
obviously devoted some thought to their choice of personal musical idol. It
also helps if their choice is not completely inane. Thank god you didn't
choose Celine Dion, John Denver, Neil Diamond or Billy Joel. Be that as it
may, Steve, I must say A) the last "Paul Simon" album I bought was "Parsley,
Sage et.al." (way back when it was new) and B) I can think of well over a
hundred Anglophonic "pop" musicians (and I use the inadequate term with some
distaste) over the past 50 years who mean more to me personally than Mr.
Simon. To name only a few (I am presuming that the term "pop" excludes jazz
& folk, and you did say "Anglophonic", so I can't include Umm Kulthoum, Yves
Montand, Edith Piaf and Fela Kuti, but I'll cheat and include blues) in no
particular order: Lennon & McCartney (as a unit), Bob Dylan (ironically...),
Frank Sinatra, Jimi Hendrix, Hank Williams, Howlin' Wolf, Leonard Cohen,
James Brown, George Jones, Little Richard, Brian Wilson, George Clinton,
Paul Butterfield, Janis Joplin, Captain Beefheart, Judy Garland, Bruce
Springsteen, Muddy Waters, Richard Thompson, Chuck D, Midnight Oil, Van
Morrison, Bruce Cockburn, Otis Rush, Marty Balin, John Cale, Lou Reed,
Curtis Mayfield, Aretha Franklin, Duane Allman, Kraftwerk, Peter Green, Joni
Mitchell, and the list goes on and on and on.
Actually, in recent years I've spent a great deal of time researching and
listening to the pop music of the years previous to 1949 (your cutoff date).
There are treasures uncounted way back there.
I am generally uncomfortable with the idea of ultimates. If I have learned
one thing in 35 years of concertgoing, it is that on any given night, on a
good night, even an obscure bar band can be the greatest musical performers
on the planet. "Greatest" is a highly mobile honorific and a terminally
subjective one. One should try to avoid declaring ultimates or definitives
of any kind.
Anyway, Steve, to compound the irony, in closing allow me to quote Mr
Zimmerman: looks like "most likely you'll go your way and I'll go mine".
Doesn't mean we can't say hello now and then.
Jennifer L. Brice
thing to not play any venues in South Africa, but when the boycott included
not promoting any Black musicians, or their music of protest, that gets a
little extreme. That would have meant that in the 60's nobody could have
sang, "We Shall Overcome." without tacitly supporting segregation. Anyway,
lay of Steven, he is just musing.
In article <37580A...@tc.umn.edu>,
"Janet M. Ryan" <ryan...@tc.umn.edu> wrote:
> Stephen Suffet wrote:
>
> > I posed a question based upon what I recall from the "Graceland"
> >era. I did not make a statement of fact.
> >
> > I believe Paul Simon and Roy Halee went to Jo'burg in '85 in techni-
> > cal violation of the boycott.
>
> That too is my recollection.
>
> >But they didn't go so Paul could work the resorts or give a concert.
>
> Nonetheless, he violated the boycott, and drew the wratch of the ANC
> leadership, both in RSA & in exile, upon him. It was his choice, and at
> the time, a shocking one indeed.
>
> >Instead they went to make contact with black South African musicians who
> >had caught Paul Simon's attention.
>
> And you don't consider that to be self-serving in light of what was at
> stake?
>
> >Several of these musicians -- including Joseph Shabalala whom Paul
> >actually met for the first time in London and who was very active in
> >the anti-apartheid resistance movement -- contributed greatly to
> >"Graceland," which was recorded in part in the RSA.
> >
>
> And that was a big part of the controversy. There was much ill will
> created among the South African musicians still residing in South Africa
> who opposed what Simon, et al did, as well as among the South African
> musicians in exile who opposed what Simon, et al did. To say Simon had
> the support of a couple of South Africans who opposed apartheid is not
> the same as saying he had the tacit support of the ANC to violate the
> boycott. PLENTY of musicians opposed what they did.
>
> > After the "Graceland" album became a hit in 1986, Paul Simon and Roy
> > Halee brought Joseph Shabalala and his group, Ladysmith Black Mambazo,
> > to the USA. It was some time afterward, I recall reading in the papers,
> > that Paul Simon got limited approval from the ANC to return to the RSA
> > so he could continue working with the South African musicians whom he
> > had brought to a wide audience.
>
> I think the date would be signficant in this regard. In 1986, the ANC
> didn't have the power to "allow" Simon or anyone else into the
> country--they were at war with the South African apartheid regime. So I
> question the legitimacy of your assertion. Not casting aspersions on you
> or your integrity, Steve. I know you are a good man. But a good man can
> be wrong.
>
> > I also recall reading that other anti-apartheid organizations were
> >neither so flexible nor so forgiving, and protested Paul Simon's return
> >to the RSA.
>
> Oh c'mon. You are trying to make an argument--and a rather damning one
> at that--based upon "what you recall reading" over a decade ago, without
> offering up any proof to back up your claims.
>
> I'm sorry Steve, but the way you are presenting your argument is somewhat
> specious and disingenuous. I'm guessing your motive for doing that is
> because you like Simon, and think he did nothing wrong by violating the
> South African boycott.
>
> >
> > Once again, I am _not_ making a definitive statement. Maybe someone
> > else could provide the specifics.
> >
>
> Well Steve, if you're not making a definitive statement, and I accept
> that--in your original post, you phrased your recollection as question,
> didn't state it as a fact. But until I see some proof of what you are
> claiming, I don't see why I should change my thinking about what Simon
> did. He violated the boycott. The boycott was the best hope for freedom
> for millions of people. He was in a position of power and influence, and
> by violating the boycott, he thumbed his nose at millions of South
> Africans and people around the world working to bring the
> apartheid regime down. He put himself in the center of it of his own
> free will--no one made him go to South Africa and do what he did. He
> knew full well what the ramifications of his actions were, and he did it
> anyway. He wasn't engaging in some sort of innocuous cultural exchange.
>
> > One thing I am certain of is this: Paul Simon played a major role
> >in exposing people around the world to the music of black South Africa.
> >For that he should be honored, not condemned.
>
> This attitude sickens me Steve. It honestly sickens me.
>
> But I remain respectfully yours,
>
> Janet Ryan
>
--
Jennifer L. Brice
http://www.tripod.com/jenniferbrice/index.html
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Jennifer L. Brice
thing to not play any venues in South Africa, but when the boycott included
not promoting any Black musicians, or their music of protest, that gets a
little extreme. That would have meant that in the 60's nobody could have
sang, "We Shall Overcome." without tacitly supporting segregation. Anyway,
Ian Anderson
> Nic's arrangement of "Canadee-I-O" was uniquely
> his, and in the circles he moved in, he was justly famous for it. Nic
> performed it for years in British folk clubs before he ever recorded it (on
> "Penguin Eggs", his last album-- and an absolutely brilliant one-- until his
> recent privately released CD). The song, as arranged by Nic, was heavily
> identified with him among the Britfolk cognoscenti, just as "Scarborough
> Fair" was heavily identified with Martin Carthy, until Paul Simon, who spent
> a lot of time in London folk clubs in 1964, stole his arrangement and had a
> big hit with it (after which Martin never performed it again, preferring not
> to have to risk paying royalties on his own arrangement-- or to have to have
> people think he was doing a Paul Simon song).
(Big Snip)
What I can add to this debate, regardless of the rights and wrongs that people
may believe, is that I have very strong evidence that Dylan did get his version
from Nic's. Before Dylan's recording came out, his son gave a cassette to
a well known English singer/songwriter who was performing in New York.
The cassette wasn't annotated but was said to be of records that were really
popular in the Dylan household. The English artist (I'm not going to identify
him and drag him into this) asked me to identify the tracks on the tape, and they
included Nic's Canadee-i-o and a Paul Brady track that subsequently found
its way onto the same Dylan album.
--
Ian Anderson
Folk Roots magazine
fro...@froots.demon.co.uk
http://www.froots.demon.co.uk/
remove anti-junkmail .off to reply
Stinky
without a meltdown.
Careful...those things cause eye-cancer you know.
Jeff
--
"I know...ever'body funny...
Now you funny, too!"
Abby Sale
wrote:
>
> In this
>> case only.
>
>Hmmmm...you mean, you think this case was the exception to the rule?
>That because of Jones' life circumstances, Dylan should have financially
>compensated him as if Jones had composed the tune?
Because of all the circumstances (already stated) around it.
>> OK. That certainly earns the right to a thoughtful opinion. It does.
>
>Well, I wasn't trying to pull rank or anything.
With significant remissions until 15 years ago, my SO has been disabled 25
years & seriously ill 10 years before that. We're still together. I
count "ability to pull rank" in these things at two years plus. Longer
than that may be the result of compulsiveness, obsessive guilt or
excessive stupidity, as much as anything laudable. Or something else.
>
>> I agree with all Janet says about Dylan & Jones. But there's a
>> "wrongness" to it. An unfairness. We, the jury, award Jones
>>compensation even though he may not (or may - what do I know?) be
>>technically entitled to it.
>
>Another big hmmmmm...
>
>Is the wrongness rooted in the situation between Jones and Dylan as we
>perceive it? That's how I felt about it until this thread anyway. And I
>agreed with you Abby, that there was something wrong.
That's why juries may supersede the law in certain cases. There's a sense
of Fair Play humans are supposed to have. Jones' disability only makes
the sense stronger. It's not simply the little guy vs the big guy
sympathy, either (Jewish law teaches us _not_ to favor the little guy
solely out of sympathy, but to be fair - even to the rich & powerful.)
"Folk" tends to consider the lot of the common guy - he shouldn't be taken
advantage of by the powerful. Certainly there's a good argument that this
is Jones' tune - just because his is the first known recording of it.
Where did Dylan get it if not from him? If that isn't a good enough
argument for a computer-at-law, then "we-the-jury" can decide that it is
good enough. Because we _want_ to. I do, anyway.
>And you never know what the hell is the
>right or the wrong way to feel about things, because most societies have
>hidden disabled folks away, and not allowed them to be a part of
>mainstream society.
It's too scarey, I think. There, but for the grace of Xxx, go I. The
worst of the offenders are the medical people. Uncurables really scare
them into human-type feelings - a situation they'll do anything possible
to avoid.
Janet M. Ryan
Jones):
>
>>> In this case only.
Then I replied:
>>Hmmmm...you mean, you think this case was the exception to the rule?
>>That because of Jones' life circumstances, Dylan should have
>>financially compensated him as if Jones had composed the tune?
>
> Because of all the circumstances (already stated) around it.
I hear ya.
Then Abby wrote in response to some points I raised about Jones'
disability from my perspective as a person with a partner disabled in an
accident, as Jones was. I made the point that Dylan also had suffered
severe bodily injury as a result of an accident, and may also live with
chronic pain and disability as a result of it. To which Abby replied:
>>> OK. That certainly earns the right to a thoughtful opinion. It
>>>does.
>
And I responded:
>>Well, I wasn't trying to pull rank or anything.
>
Then Abby:
> With significant remissions until 15 years ago, my SO has been disabled
>25 years & seriously ill 10 years before that. We're still together. I
> count "ability to pull rank" in these things at two years plus. Longer
> than that may be the result of compulsiveness, obsessive guilt or
> excessive stupidity, as much as anything laudable. Or something else.
>
I was with my partner for 13 years after his accident. I've remained
involved with the disabled community through my work at the university,
even after my split with my SO. We are now...whatever it is SO are when
they split. ;-)
I mentioned Dylan's accident from the perspective of a loved one and
family member of a disabled person, as well as someone who
continues to work in the larger community with disability rights
activists, rather than as a member of the jury in the Dylan vs. Jones
trial. As I read the thread, I was surprised that Dylan & his loved ones
and family (let's face it, loved ones and family are not always
synonymous, are they?) suffering as a result of his accident wasn't being
taken into consideration, while Jones' disability was being made a
central issue in the debate. I'm still not convinced that Jones'
disability should be considered an issue in this at all.
Then back to Abby:
>>> I agree with all Janet says about Dylan & Jones. But there's a
>>> "wrongness" to it. An unfairness. We, the jury, award Jones
>>>compensation even though he may not (or may - what do I know?) be
>>>technically entitled to it.
Then Janet:
>>Another big hmmmmm...
>
>>Is the wrongness rooted in the situation between Jones and Dylan as we
>>perceive it? That's how I felt about it until this thread anyway. And
>>I agreed with you Abby, that there was something wrong.
>
Then Abby said:
> That's why juries may supersede the law in certain cases. There's a
>sense of Fair Play humans are supposed to have. Jones' disability only
>makes the sense stronger. It's not simply the little guy vs the big guy
> sympathy, either (Jewish law teaches us _not_ to favor the little guy
> solely out of sympathy, but to be fair - even to the rich & powerful.)
Early on in this thread, I had mentioned I felt there was a David &
Goliath dynamic involved in this, and I still believe that to be true.
Jones is economically challenged, according to reports from people who
know him, and Dylan is economically advantaged/privleged according to the
general belief that he must be filthy rich because he is a pop star. So
there is a David and Goliath dynamic there, in terms of the
disability issue and the income issue. Invoking them creates an uneven
playing field, in my mind at least, in order to gain advantage over
the Dylan camp. Neither the disability issue or the income issue is
relevant to the actual case as I see it--i.e. does Dylan owe Jones
financial compensation and/or public recognition as the source of a
tune?
The David & Goliath aspect of Jones' disability and the assumption that
Dylan enjoys perfect health and well-being needs to be addressed here I
think. In my own vague way, I was trying to call that assumption into
question--trouble the waters a bit for people, but not in a way that
blasts them for being insensitive jerks. Did it work? ;-)
Just because it isn't public knowledge, it is entirely possible that
Dylan may well be disabled as a result of his injuries from the accident.
My partner crushed several discs in his back, and the general medical
consensus is that his condition is inoperable. He has what many people
refer to as an invisible disability, because he is not restricted to a
wheelchair, and only uses a cane when his flare-ups are particularly bad.
We have become as accustomed as you ever get to hearing people who are
strangers, *and* near and dear to you say "He doesn't look very disabled
to me" when he does things he is still able to do (but pays a high
price for afterwards with his pain level)--things he has always
loved and enjoyed doing, like dancing. Playing with the kids.
Stubbornly deciding he will build something (he was a carpenter when he
was disabled) or do some repair work that requires strength he doesn't
really have. He pays a high price for doing the simplest of life tasks
the rest of us take for granted, so people think he is faking his
disability. But people don't see him trying to function in excruciating
pain afterwards--or impaired for months every winter, because he's fallen
on snow and ice, that sort of thing. My point is--I think Dylan may well
have an invisible disability as a result of his accident that we are
simply unaware of. But even if he was truly blessed with a 100% recovery
from his injuries, it doesn't mean that he doesn't understand or have
empathy for Jones' suffering. In this regard, *I* know Dylan has "been
there."
For as famous a figure as Dylan is, he has done an admirable job keeping
his life private. Knowing what I know today about disabilities, and how
bad his accident was, I'm guessing he may be keeping to himself about his
own disability. There are a lot of emotional and psychological factors
disabled people face which most of us never have to deal with, including
their remaining in denial about it. I have a former sister-in-law who
was diagnosed with MS almost a decade ago, and who finally just
admitted/allowed herself a disability within the last year. Dylan,
because of his wealth, may be able to afford to remain in denial about a
disability, if he has one. We just don't know, of course. But we know
he suffered as a result of a traffic accident, as did Jones. So the
specious argument that Dylan would be uncaring in this regard is stooping
pretty low, in my book.
> "Folk" tends to consider the lot of the common guy - he shouldn't be
>taken advantage of by the powerful. Certainly there's a good argument
>that this is Jones' tune - just because his is the first known recording
>of it.
Yes, I agree that the most compelling piece of evidence the Jones' camp
has is the fact that Nic's recording is the first known. But he
himself also put "trad arr by" on it, which makes it a pretty open/shut
case in terms of claiming individual composer's rights to the song. But
as many knowledgeable contributors have pointed out--this is a huge grey
area, because the folk process isn't the same thing as the folk music
business. Copyright law *has* intervened in the folk process in terribly
complex ways, as has--oh, what shall we call it--the conventional
practices of acknowledging the source of tunes/songs by the pop music
industry vis a vis the folk music industry. And vis a vis the
traditional cultures who's music gets appropriated both by professional
folk *and* pop musicians and industries.
This relates to what Anthony Seeger and some others working in the
field have come to refer to as a culture's "community rights as artists
and composers." I think it is the rights of the latter that so often
gets over-looked in these discussions--they are certainly being
overlooked in this one.
> Where did Dylan get it if not from him? If that isn't a good enough
> argument for a computer-at-law, then "we-the-jury" can decide that it
>is good enough. Because we _want_ to. I do, anyway.
If Jones credited the tune as "trad arr by" on his original recording,
aren't we doubting his veracity as a folk artist by claiming it for him?
I can appreciate the desire to see justice done for Nic and imposed on
Dylan, but what about how the case sets precedence for those claiming
"community rights" in similar circumstances that follow?
The problem here is everyone, all sides, are arguing about this song as
if it were Jones' personal property--and therefore arguing for its
value in strictly capitalist terms. But the Jones camp, IMO, is
disingenuously invoking both a capitalist argument, and a
traditional-music-as-community-property argument. This is a trick of the
trade often used by Western folk/trad musicians/music industry to cover
both their bases, and make sure they are compensated financially for
recording a tune/song from the public domain.
Considering who the money goes to if they don't (as Frank and Irwin have
pointed out), is that a bad thing? No, I don't think so--its pragmatic.
But it doesn't mean it isn't somewhat disingenous when it gets invoked in
these kinds of debates.
This kind of "someone got rich off our music" debate too often results in
wildly inflated expectations that make payment of legitimate royalties
appear deceitful. I think that's what is really at the heart of this
whole Jones/Dylan thing. And so as it went on, the invocations of Jones'
disability as a justification for him winning some compensatory kind of
justic from Dylan. Whatever award it is the Jones camp feels he is
deserving of, I might add--they haven't made it clear whether it should
be money, public recognition of Jones as the source, or throwing Dylan in
the stocks to humiliate him (usually done nowadays by forcing a full
page advert in the paper, acknowledging whatever court orders be
acknowledged) have they?
Its all these circumstances combined, as they showed up in this
thread, which then started to make my stomach churn. Isn't there
something deceitful here--using Jones' disability to opportunistically
inflate people's expectation that Dylan had the power to right Jones'
wrong with his money? Or his reputation and standing? Or by David
succeeding in being given a perpetual bully pulpit by us, the jury, to
use against Goliath in perpetuity because he doesn't have the "right
stuff" (whatever it may be, and I haven't a clue what it would be) to
defeat him outright in a moral battle based upon our sense of justice
and fair play?
I'd be much more comfortable if Jones' disability weren't made an issue
of in this debate, because I don't think it is really an issue. And its
an opportunistic, patronizing tactic, IMO. Or, I should say, the
arguments put forth by Jones' camp which invoked it, resembled an
opportunistic, patronizing attitude closely enough for me to balk and say
"Hey, wait a minute!" What's really going on here?
Same thing with using the Dylan is rich/Jones is poor tactic.
I'm really not saying you're wrong here Abby. I guess what I'm saying
is, I'm just not so sure anymore that the Jones camp is right in saying
Jones was wronged, and that we-the-jury should pronounce Dylan guilty as
charged.
What you say about we-the-jury having a case-by-case ability to decide
based upon our sense of justice and fairness rather than the merits of
the case is true, of course. But I don't think I'm willing to make that
leap of faith in this case, based upon what I knew before, and have seen
in this thread. The precedence it would set for those cultures who still
claim their "community right" to their music traditions is too dangerous.
Such a decision favoring Jones, IMO, would mean that the capitalist
copyright interests, which are based on the concept of individual
creation and ownership for which royalties get paid, will win out over
the interests of communal creation and ownership of music, keeping the
music in the public domain.
I agree, its a tricky one to decide--we know that just because a song is
in the public domain doesn't mean that unscrupulous types don't claim it
for themselves. We also know that whether a song is copyrighted *or* in
the public domain, that music industry law is written to allow
corporations and other legal entities to make money off a song in the
public domain, if the artist who records it doesn't put that "trad arr
by" label on their recorded version of the song.
But such arguments still only benefit the professional recording artist
and capitalist music business interests. It doesn't even include the
"community rights" interests in the equation, does it? So why does the
Jones camp try and raise an expectation of Jones being a poor folk artist
trying to look out for the interest of his community's music traditions,
when what is really happening is people are trying to raise expectations
that he deserves to be compensated for a traditional song as if he were
the original composer? And therefore, should be an exception to the
rule, and entitled to royalties from Dylan and anyone else who records
the song.
What I'm asking is this: why should we accept that Jones be seen as an
exception to the rule? What I think the Jones camp is saying is:
1. Jones deserves compensation, including royalties for a tune he
states was traditional on his own album, because he is disabled.
2. Jones deserves compensation of some sort from Bob Dylan, who recorded
the song, but didn't pay royalties to Jones because:
a) Bob Dylan is making money off "our" music (i.e. the English
folk community's music);
b) Because Bob Dylan "can afford" to pay royalties to Jones;
c) Because we folk music lovers don't like to see pop musicians
make money off folk music, and feel that only professional folk musicians
from "our" community should be allowed to make money with "our" music.
Well, I could go on, but this sort of sums up the way I'm
interpreting the arguments the Jones camp are putting forth here.
This is a confusing mess, innit?
Janet Ryan
Donald A. Duncan
<isi...@igc.apc.org> wrote:
> (Few people grasped the
>irony of the claim to authorship of "Two Maidens Went Milking," a song
>which was one of the mainstays in the concert repertoire of Richard
>Dyer-Bennet who had been blacklisted as the result of Burl Ives having
>named him as a Communist before the Un-American Activities Committee.")
Perhaps we could clarify this. It was my understanding that Burl Ives told HUAC
that to the best of his knowledge, Dyer-Bennet was *not* a Communist. The
problem was that providing *any* name to HUAC was tantamount to
ruining a career, regardless of whether you proclaimed them 'guilty' or
'innocent'.
-Don Duncan
ghost
>What I'm asking is this: why should we accept that Jones be seen as an
>exception to the rule? What I think the Jones camp is saying is:
>1. Jones deserves compensation, including royalties for a tune he
>states was traditional on his own album, because he is disabled.
No, what I (not speaking for the whole camp, of course) say here is:
Jones deserves compensation for his arrangement.
Not for the *tune*, which he gives as "trad", but for the very distinctive
trademark Nic Jones rhythmic arrangement. Martin Carthy has arranged many tunes
himself in this trademark Nic Jones style, & may even have been a contributor
to the creation of the style way-back-when (I don't really know), but Dylan
has only recorded one song in that style & that's Canadee-I-O.
Dunno you *can* copyright a rhythmic component (actually, I have it
on the authority of a radio interview with an African musician who's
trademark rhythm, which he says no-one had ever used before him, was taken
without acknowledgement by Prince <before he became
the-artist-formerly-known-as> that you can't, or this guy would be sueing;
he'd like an aknowledgement even though he knows he won't get a copyright
on rhythm alone) but if there were any justice in the world it would
at least be considered as an *aspect* of a very distinctive arrangement,
in which the guitar-note placements also count big-time.
Daniel R. Reitman
<pet...@erols.com> wrote:
>Janet M. Ryan wrote:
>> His career had been dead in the water since the break-up with Garfunkel.
>Not true in the slightest. Simon had several hits on his own after
>breaking up with Garfunkel.
True. There must be fifty ways to lose your street cred. :-)
Dan, ad nauseam
P.S., IIRC, Simon went to the S.Af. musicians' union for permission
before recording. I think their decision to work with him after
discussing the boycott issue should be given some recognition.
Janet M. Ryan
> P.S., IIRC, Simon went to the S.Af. musicians' union for permission
> before recording. I think their decision to work with him after
> discussing the boycott issue should be given some recognition.
I'm confused. Recognition for what? Finding a group within South Africa
who was willing to help him violate the boycott?
Janet Ryan
Peter Stone Brown
The boycott wasn't against musicians. The boycott was against
performing in South Africa. Simon did not perform in South Africa. He
went and worked with musicians who were the victims of Apartheid.
Should these musicians have not been heard? There is a big difference
between working with essentially traditional South African musicians and
playing Sun City. The musicians Simon worked with were the oppressed,
not the oppressors, and you fail to distinguish that.
Martin Grossman
ghost wrote:
but Dylan
> has only recorded one song in that style & that's Canadee-I-O.
I've listened several times to the two versions back-to-back and I think
the guitar parts and rhythmic "feel" are different from one another. To
my ears, each version reflects the unique phrasing and "feel" of the
respective singers.
MArtin Grossman
>
> Dunno you *can* copyright a rhythmic component (actually, I have it
> on the authority of a radio interview with an African musician who's
> trademark rhythm, which he says no-one had ever used before him, was taken
> without acknowledgement by Prince <before he became
> the-artist-formerly-known-as> that you can't, or this guy would be sueing;
> he'd like an aknowledgement even though he knows he won't get a copyright
> on rhythm alone) but if there were any justice in the world it would
> at least be considered as an *aspect* of a very distinctive arrangement,
> in which the guitar-note placements also count big-time.
Phone (510) 843-1573
Fax (510) 843-1574
E-mail t...@slip.net
ghost
>ghost wrote:
> but Dylan
>> has only recorded one song in that style & that's Canadee-I-O.
>I've listened several times to the two versions back-to-back and I think
>the guitar parts and rhythmic "feel" are different from one another. To
>my ears, each version reflects the unique phrasing and "feel" of the
>respective singers.
Yeah, you've said that already. The Dylan version is readily available,
the Jones version as far as I know only available from the Joneses
(I think; is this on one of the albums that *are* commercially available?;
I have it on an early album, but mine's so early its vinyl).
People who don't want to the word of either of us should get their own
copies & compare for themselves.
I don't find the rythmic feel is at all different between the two.
Dylan's vocal phrasing is, no surprise, Dylan's very own unique vocal phrasing,
but we're *not* talking the vocal part here, we're talking the *guitar* part
& the rhythm.
ghost
>ghost wrote:
>> Jones deserves compensation for his arrangement.
>> Not for the *tune*, which he gives as "trad", but for the very
>>distinctive trademark Nic Jones rhythmic arrangement.
>Well, that was what my last very lengthy post was questioning from a lot
>of different angles. Its fine you feel that way. I felt that way too
>before this thread, and I still do feel it would have been great if
>Dylan had given recognition to Jones. But I don't think Jones should be
>financially compensated anymore.
Jones deserves more than just acknowlegement/recognition; he deserves
arranger's credit & royalties.
>And it was this thread made me start to
>question some of the assumptions as to *why* I had felt Jones should
>be financially compensated by Dylan, considering the fact that
>(apparently) copyright law in the US and the UK doesn't/didn't allow for
>royalties to be paid for arrangements.
Copyright law in the US allows for royalties to be paid for arrangements.
I'm pretty sure that copyright law in the UK (& Dylan's album may be covered
under the latest international agreement, anyway) allows for payment of
royalties for arrangements, too.
>After ruminating about it, I realized that *if* Jones were to pursue it
>legally and win, it would set a horrible precedence for other traditional
>musicians, many of whom are already up in arms over the ways the music
>industry's lawyers are muscling their way into the public domain to loot
>it financially, just because they can.
If we can keep the lawyers out (ha!) then letting the musicians themselves
get credit, which includes remuneration, for their arrangements of
trad material would be a very good thing. It would emphasize that
the material *is* traditional, & go some way toward putting a stop to
unscrupulous people (or their omnipresent agents working on the musicians'
& on their own their behalf) copyrighting material they (& their agents,
record companies, etc) know they did not write.
And it would give these people as *arrangers* of trad material
credit for the work they *did* do.
And in the cases where no-one seriously thinks their arrangement is that
much of a change to the song that they should seriously pursue royalties,
we'd have a big body of precedent to point to in opposition when
someone does try to seek royalties for really trivial changes to a trad piece.
Realistically, what you probably *would* wind up with is just about everybody
seeking royalties on their *own* arrangement, but no-one who "borrowed"
an arrangement wholesale getting away with copyrighting it, or, much more
importantly, the piece itself, as their own. Which I think would be
a good way for things to turn out.
Irwin Silber
<It was my understanding that Burl Ives told HUAC that to the best of
his knowledge, Dyer-Bennet was *not* a Communist. The problem was that
providing *any* name to HUAC was tantamount to ruining a career,
regardless of whether you proclaimed them 'guilty' or 'innocent'.>
Not so. I have read Burl Ives' testimony. (It may have been
before the Senate equivalent of HUAC, not HUAC itself.) Unfortunately I
can't put my hand on it at this moment. But I distinctly recall that
Burl Ives named Richard Dyer-Bennet as either an actual member of the
Communist Party or an active "fellow traveler." This is confirmed by
Oscar Brand who, in his obituary of Dyer-Bennet (Sing Out! Vol. 37, No.
1) wrote:
"Burl Ives appeared at his own request and declared that he had attended
many Communist Party functions, but only as a companion to his good
friend, Richard Dyer-Bennet." As a result of Ives' testimony,
Dyer-Bennet was an officially blacklisted performer during the fifties
with extremely negative consequences for what had once been a highly
successful career.
Irwin Silber
Abby Sale
wrote:
>1. Jones deserves compensation, including royalties for a tune he
>states was traditional on his own album
It's the arrangement that's compensable, not the song (text.)
Frank Hamilton
amended to let arrangements be compensated for when they involve
traditional tunes but forbid the trad tunes from being copyrighted.
Now what happens when you change the tune? Say John Jacob Niles
changes the major myxolydian mode tune that Jean Ritchie uses to
"Black Is The Color Of My True Love's Hair". Is he entitled to a new
melody? Or an adaptation of the old one?
My solution is simple. Take any song that any artist or writer
creates and change it. Let it be a unique variation. Copyright the
adaptation. Give any other artist or writer the chance to do the same
with any song. If it's different than the original, don't honor the
originator's claim in court. Then we can call it folk music.
Did Woody write the tune for Pastures of Plenty? Or was it Pretty
Polly? Did Bob Dylan write the tune for "Masters of War" or is it
"Nottingham Town" sung by Jean Ritchie?
Or "Patriot's Game" or "God On Our Side"?
Now the problem of lyrics is another issue. Is "Five Hundred Miles"
four miles short of "Nine Hundred Miles"? Did Frank Profitt write the
words to Tom Dula? Hardly anyone remembers "I will twine midst the
ringlets of raven black hair". A.P. Carter decided to "twine with
mingles".
Point is, copyright law gets out of hand when it refuses to let a song
grow into different forms. This is exactly what folk song does.
But the basic controversey is really about money. And sometimes greed.
Frank Hamilton
Mahir Ali
supporters of apartheid - on this question?
"Janet M. Ryan" wrote:
> Peter Stone Brown wrote:
> >
> > The boycott wasn't against musicians. The boycott was against
> > performing in South Africa.
>
> No, the ANC boycott was organized to prevent ALL countries and business
> interests outside the RSA from doing business with RSA businesses and/or
> the RSA apartheid government, inside AND outside South Africa. The
> boycott was intended to disrupt and damage all sectors of the RSA
> apartheid economy, not just the entertainment industry.
>
> > Simon did not perform in South Africa. He went and worked with
> >musicians who were the victims of Apartheid.
>
> Yeah, and so did a bizillion other companies and individuals who
> conducted business with RSA businesses and/or the RSA government, in
> violation of the ANC's boycott. But Peter, you seem to be forgetting
> something here--THE WERE THE BAD GUYS.
>
> Simon and everyone else who violated the boycott chose the wrong
> side--their decision to violate the ANC boycott was a decision to support
> the apartheid regime. The terms were just that stark at the time Simon
> violated the boycott.
>
> > Should these musicians have not been heard?
>
> Whether South African musicians should/could/would be heard if Paul Simon
> violated the ANC boycott is wholly irrelevant to the question of whether
> or not Paul Simon's decision to violate the boycott was the right thing
> for him to do. It was never about the South African musicians. It was
> about Paul Simon doing whatever the hell he wanted, and thumbing his nose
> at the ANC, the international anti-apartheid movement, and the people of
> RSA.
>
> South African musicians were being heard all around the world before Paul
> Simon violated the ANC boycott, and afterwards, with no assistance from
> him whatsoever. To try and claim that the world would forever be
> deprived of South African music, or that South African musicians
> would be deprived of their livelihood if Paul Simon didn't violate the
> boycott is pure unadulterated bullshit.
>
> > There is a big difference between working with essentially traditional
> >South African musicians and playing Sun City.
>
> Not to the ANC, the broader coalition of anti-apartheid organizations
> within the RSA who supported the ANC boycott, or the international
> anti-apartheid movement there wasn't. A violation of the boycott by
> traditional or any other kinds of South African musicians was still a
> violation of the boycott.
>
> Playing Sun City doesn't even enter the equation--black South African
> musicians couldn't play Sun City, remember?
>
> There were many ways non-South African artists could violate the ANC
> boycott, not just Sun City. You are only remembering the most visible
> aspects of the anti-apartheid protests in the US, the Sun City video.
>
> There were prohibitions on all kinds of economic activities artists
> engaged in that were included in the ANC boycott, some of which Paul
> Simon violated. By violating the boycott, he risked bringing the boycott
> down, and ending the best hope for bringing the apartheid regime down for
> who knows how many more generations. It was a selfish, arrogant and
> inexcusable act by a wealthy pop dilettante who didn't give a shit what
> happened to the South African people then, and doesn't care what's
> happening to them now. And that includes those traditional musicians he
> just *had* to violate the boycott to play with--what's he doing for them
> and South African music now, hmmmm?
>
> > The musicians Simon worked with were the oppressed, not the oppressors,
> >and you fail to distinguish that.
>
> Again, that's irrelevant to the issue at hand. Paul Simon violated the
> ANC boycott. He was wrong to do it. Violating the boycott was much more
> than just a political slap in the face. It endangered the boycott
> itself, which is what ultimately brought the South African apartheid
> government and its economy to its knees. Which is ultimately what
> brought the South African apartheid government to the negotiating table
> with the ANC.
>
> *Any* violation of the boycott threatened to destroy all the work
> done--decades of activist work, of war, of brutal repression of the
> people of South Africa, of building alliances within South Africa and in
> the international community. Those living and working in South Africa in
> support of the boycott were risking their freedom and their lives to to
> do it. But their work, unlike Simon's, actually benefited *all* the
> people of South Africa--the oppressors and the oppressed. Not just the
> lucky ones who got to play with Paul Simon.
>
> And now that its all said and done, what has Simon's music done in
> viiolation of the ANC boycott done for the people of South Africa?
>
> Janet Ryan
Jeri Corlew
>On Sat, 12 Jun 1999 00:28:31 +1000, Mahir Ali <ma...@one.net.au>
>wrote:
>
>
>>"Janet M. Ryan" wrote:
>>
>>> Peter Stone Brown wrote:
>>> >
>>> > The boycott wasn't against musicians. The boycott was against
>>> > performing in South Africa.
>>>
>>> No, the ANC boycott was organized to prevent ALL countries and
>business
>>> interests outside the RSA from doing business with RSA businesses
>and/or
>>> the RSA apartheid government, inside AND outside South Africa. The
>>> boycott was intended to disrupt and damage all sectors of the RSA
>>> apartheid economy, not just the entertainment industry.
>>>
>
>It's ironic to hear this righteous philosophy from European /
>Americans who successfully colonized The US and Canada by both active
>and passive genocide of my ancestors!
> Please spare us the sanctimony about South Africa...
Rich, I don't think Janet was around then. Prejudice is vile in any form - it
gives you a reason to hate someone you don't even know.
For me this issue is too close to decide if Simon did right or wrong. On one
hand, he brought a whole lot of attention to the issue. On the other, he broke
the rules, and I don't know if hurt the boycott or not. I have a hard time
believing he didn't feel strongly about doing what he thought was the right
thing. I think the South Africans who worked with him might have sensed if he
were just in it for the money.
__
Jeri Corlew
(Remove "XXX" to reply)
Narita Shoji
Abby Sale <ANTI-SPA...@orlinter.com> wrote in message
news:375b9043...@cnews.newsguy.com...
> On Sat, 05 Jun 1999 01:24:23 -0700, "Janet M. Ryan" <ryan...@tc.umn.edu>
> wrote:
>
> >
> > In this
> >> case only.
> >
> >Hmmmm...you mean, you think this case was the exception to the rule?
> >That because of Jones' life circumstances, Dylan should have financially
> >compensated him as if Jones had composed the tune?
>
> Because of all the circumstances (already stated) around it.
>
> >
>
> years & seriously ill 10 years before that. We're still together. I
> count "ability to pull rank" in these things at two years plus. Longer
> than that may be the result of compulsiveness, obsessive guilt or
> excessive stupidity, as much as anything laudable. Or something else.
> >
> >> "wrongness" to it. An unfairness. We, the jury, award Jones
> >>compensation even though he may not (or may - what do I know?) be
> >>technically entitled to it.
> >
> >
> >Is the wrongness rooted in the situation between Jones and Dylan as we
> >perceive it? That's how I felt about it until this thread anyway. And I
> >agreed with you Abby, that there was something wrong.
>
> of Fair Play humans are supposed to have. Jones' disability only makes
> the sense stronger. It's not simply the little guy vs the big guy
> sympathy, either (Jewish law teaches us _not_ to favor the little guy
> solely out of sympathy, but to be fair - even to the rich & powerful.)
>
> advantage of by the powerful. Certainly there's a good argument that this
> is Jones' tune - just because his is the first known recording of it.
> argument for a computer-at-law, then "we-the-jury" can decide that it is
> good enough. Because we _want_ to. I do, anyway.
>
> >right or the wrong way to feel about things, because most societies have
> >hidden disabled folks away, and not allowed them to be a part of
> >mainstream society.
>
> It's too scarey, I think. There, but for the grace of Xxx, go I. The
> worst of the offenders are the medical people. Uncurables really scare
> them into human-type feelings - a situation they'll do anything possible
> to avoid.
>
>