[Harp-L] Plagiarism According to Muddy Waters and Jonathan Lethem
Roger Boyce
interview with Alan Lomax, from Jonathan Lethem's splendid article ( in the
Jan. 2007 Harpers Magazine / online ) entitled - The ecstacy of influence: A
Plagiarism. Lethems article makes for entertaining reading and comes
complete with a sucker-punch-surprise-of-an-ending which puts the whole
notion of creativity & plagiarism in a fresh light.
Begin extracted Quote -
The Ecstasy of Influence:
by Jonathan Lethem
łIn 1941, on his front porch, Muddy Waters recorded a song for the
folklorist Alan Lomax. After singing the song, which he told Lomax was
entitled łCountry Blues,˛ Waters described how he came to write it. łI made
it on about the eighth of October '38,˛ Waters said. łI was fixin' a
puncture on a car. I had been mistreated by a girl. I just felt blue, and
the song fell into my mind and it come to me just like that and I started
singing.˛
Then Lomax, who knew of the Robert Johnson recording called łWalkin' Blues,˛
asked Waters if there were any other songs that used the same tune. łThere's
been some blues played like that,˛ Waters replied. łThis song comes from the
cotton field and a boy once put a record out‹Robert Johnson. He put it out
as named ŚWalkin' Blues.' I heard the tune before I heard it on the record.
I learned it from Son House.˛
In nearly one breath, Waters offers five accounts: his own active
authorship: he łmade it˛ on a specific date. Then the łpassive˛ explanation:
łit come to me just like that.˛ After Lomax raises the question of
influence, Waters, without shame, misgivings, or trepidation, says that he
heard a version by Johnson, but that his mentor, Son House, taught it to
him. In the middle of that complex genealogy, Waters declares that łthis
song comes from the cotton field.˛
End Quote
My mother came from the cotton fields ( daughter of a share-cropper ) and
sang songs ( on her own and in bands ) she learned from black and white
folks she knew there. The first song I ever sang, by myself in my crib,
turned out later to be a Leadbelly tune. Much later I would hear the
melodies and lyric variations of songs -I sang with my Mother - on the radio
in newer popular country, blues, rock-and-roll, pop and jazz tunes.
I am now a painter and an educator in the arts. I tell my students that the
creative field is an area of human endeavor where theft ( i.e. Influence, to
one degree or another ) is not just sanctioned but encouraged and crucial in
the manufacture of 'new' culture.
Respectfully Yours
Roger 'Wader" Boyce
Expatriate American thief, living in Christchurch, New Zealand
_______________________________________________
Harp-L is sponsored by SPAH, http://www.spah.org
Har...@harp-l.org
http://harp-l.org/mailman/listinfo/harp-l
Tom Baehr
Tom
George Brooks
2007 issue of Harper's. Find it here:
http://www.harpers.org/archive/2007/02/0081387
George
Sergei
start quote
"You can't steal a gift." Dizzy Gillespie, defending another player
who'd been accused of poaching Charlie Parker's style: "You can't
steal a gift. Bird gave the world his music, and if you can hear it
you can have it.''
end quote
Sergei
Garry Hodgson
> A very cool quote from that article:
>
> "You can't steal a gift." Dizzy Gillespie, defending another player
> who'd been accused of poaching Charlie Parker's style: "You can't
> steal a gift. Bird gave the world his music, and if you can hear it
> you can have it.''
wow. that is awesome.
----
Garry Hodgson, Senior Software Geek, AT&T CSO
nobody can do everything, but everybody can do something.
do something.
Biscui...@aol.com
Agreed agreed!!!
BiscuitBoy Blues
In a message dated 7/2/2007 8:57:17 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
ga...@sage.att.com writes:
Sergei <svo...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:
wow. that is awesome.
************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.
Bob Cohen
On Jul 2, 2007, at 7:34 AM, Sergei wrote:
> "You can't steal a gift." Dizzy Gillespie, defending another player
> who'd been accused of poaching Charlie Parker's style: "You can't
> steal a gift. Bird gave the world his music, and if you can hear it
> you can have it.''
Wow. That quote sent shivers down my spine. I think I'll steal it. ;-)
--B
Bob Cohen
Principal, MojoTools Web Design
Blues Harmonica Lessons
Web : www.mojotools.com
Office : 508.384.0405
Cell : 508.954.3051
Winslow Yerxa
True, Bird and Diz were friends and co-creators of a musical style. And
Dizzy was a man who actively cultivated peace and higher understanding.
But would Diz have been quite so sanguine if someone else were raking
in the bucks and fame by duplicating Diz's solos note for note,
especially while giving no credit to the source?
On a similar note, someone earlier in this vast thread enthused on the
fact that the ripoff artist was spreading joy to his listeners with the
copied solos and that therefore it was cool.
That's a little like excusing a thief for being generous with his
ill-gotten gains. Anyone who benefits without knowing about the theft
is being abused and deceived. Anyone who knowingly participates is as
much a thief as the original robber.
Ain't nothing wrong with using your influences. As amply pointed out,
every artist recycles what they find; it's part of the creative
process. But stone cold note-for-note duplication is the opposite of
creative; it's like putting up a defensive shield against having an
original thought or the scary and sometimes painful and chaotic process
of creating something of your own.
Winslow
____________________________________________________________________________________
Choose the right car based on your needs. Check out Yahoo! Autos new Car Finder tool.
http://autos.yahoo.com/carfinder/
Splash
From: "Winslow Yerxa"
> On a similar note, someone earlier in this vast thread enthused on the
> fact that the ripoff artist was spreading joy to his listeners with the
> copied solos and that therefore it was cool.
>
> That's a little like excusing a thief for being generous with his
> ill-gotten gains.
If you were talking about my post:
"-----Original Message-----
Where's my Buddhist buddies? What say the beggar monks?
--------------------------------
Well, there are probably some people who were at that show, who never heard
of Little Walter or Sonny Boy, and saw the show and really loved the
performance. It made them feel good.
They went home with their spirit elevated from the experience.
That's not a bad thing."
-------
You certainly did insert quite a bit that was not there, Winslow. That's
called "transference."
Note the request for a Buddhist perspective.
I wasn't "enthusing" anything.
I stand by my "Buddhist" perspective.
I'll bet there were some people there who never heard of Little Walter or
Sony Boy. Wanna bet?
And still going home after a performance with an elevated spirit is not a
bad thing. After all, that's why you go to a show in the first place, isn't
it? From the perspective of an "ignorant" audience member, going home happy
is a good thing.
If you like, You go tell them that their good experience and elevated
spirit is from recieving stolen goods and that they have no right to feel
good.
Go ahead.
I also didn't say it "was cool." Those were your words. More transference.
PEACE
Scott
Believe in Magic!
Bob Laughlin
----- Original Message -----
From: "Winslow Yerxa" <winslo...@yahoo.com>
> On a similar note, someone earlier in this vast thread enthused on the
> fact that the ripoff artist was spreading joy to his listeners with the
> copied solos and that therefore it was cool.
>
> That's a little like excusing a thief for being generous with his
> ill-gotten gains. Anyone who benefits without knowing about the theft
> is being abused and deceived. Anyone who knowingly participates is as
> much a thief as the original robber.
>
>
Hey,,I always thought Robin Hood was doing the right thing, in stealing back
that which was unfairly taken from the people, in unfair taxation, and
giving it back to the people.
I heard someone talk about "relative morality", where a man stealing for
certain purposes is justified.
What if, for instance, someone needs water, and the well owner decides to
keep him from going to the well, or a stream goes through some property that
belongs to another man, and that man decides to dam the stream, stopping its
flow to the neighboring farms?
Some alleged "crimes" may save lives, for instance blowing up the dam, which
shouldn't have been constructed anyway, morally speaking.
If crime rights a moral wrong, is it wrong to commit the crime?
This theme is covered in the French movies "Manot of the Spring", and "Jean
de Floret", by the way.
How do we know if the writers or composers of songs copyrighted in their
names haven't really received their "inspiration" from another, uncredited
source?
Just asking.
BL
Winslow Yerxa
Manon of the Spring. Great theme music, taken *with credit* from
Verdi's la Forza del Destino and played on harmonica by Toots
Thielemans, who also plays a folk theme that is played onscreen by
Manon (the deceased Jean de Florette's daughter, played by the
beautiful Emmanuelle Béart) as she dances around nude after bathing in
a mountain spring, thinking she is alone (but she is observed by the
nephew of - but you can watch the movie if you want to get the whole
soap opera).
Anyway, I hardly think Little Water and SBWII qualify as the sort of
robber barons that Robin Hood was up against (at least in legend) or
the sort of selfish landowners who deprive others wrongly of water. And
there are effective legal remedies to the wrongs you describe.
Countering crime with crime is seldom a successful strategy.
Winslow
____________________________________________________________________________________
Take the Internet to Go: Yahoo!Go puts the Internet in your pocket: mail, news, photos & more.
http://mobile.yahoo.com/go?refer=1GNXIC
Bob Laughlin
----- Original Message -----
From: "Winslow Yerxa" <winslo...@yahoo.com>
> Anyway, I hardly think Little Water and SBWII qualify as the sort of
> robber barons that Robin Hood was up against (at least in legend) or
> the sort of selfish landowners who deprive others wrongly of water. And
> there are effective legal remedies to the wrongs you describe.
> Countering crime with crime is seldom a successful strategy.
>
> Winslow
>
However, in the eyes of some, though perhaps not in a strictly "legal"
sense, that which has allegedly been "stolen", was not one's "property" in
the first place. I mean, how much actual "work" or "creativity" does it take
for someone to come up with a harp lick? With enough practice, one
accidentally bumps into numerous licks, runs, passages that have already
been bumped into numerous times. It was only because this or that lick had
been recorded, with the advent of the recording technology, that the lick
was eventually attributed to so-and-so, instead of whoever he or she may
have borrowed it from. I'm sure neither Little Walter nor Sonny Boys I or II
were the first harp players, neither the original inventors of their
particular style. They borrowed, stole, copied from others as well. Isn't
this pretty obvious, logically speaking.
I "invented" a tool for removing scuffs from linoleum flooring. It's
essentially a tennis ball on a broomstick. I had heard that tennis balls
would remove scuffs, and simply went a step further in finding a way to put
one on the end of a stick. I use this tool a lot at the store I work at.
People coming into the store would say,,"Hey, you should patent that." I had
the feeling it had already been invented, since it was a very simple
concept, and didn't go to the trouble of doing a search. Someone else in the
store then began to brag that they had "invented" this tool, and were going
to initiate the patent process. I laughed inwardly.
Eventually, it's easy enough to find this scuff-removal tool on the
internet, and patents applied to it. Google "scuff removal tool tennis
ball", and see.
Now I could have been the first, if I'd been early enough, but I knew I
wasn't.
It's all in who decides to "lay claim" to the idea first, not necessarily
who ACTUALLY came up with the idea.
So,,who's "stealing" from whom?
If I say that I invented this tool, when someone else did, but didn't claim
to, am I right?
If I was first to patent this idea, does that make it "my idea"? Maybe in a
strictly legalistic sense, but perhaps not in fact. That makes the legal
system a mere system of procedures, by which some may "win", and others
"lose" at the expense of ultimate truth.
I am fairly certain that there are relatively unknown musicians who have
come up with plenty of things that others later took credit for, for the
sake of profit.
Could be some guy sitting on his porch whom we never have heard of played
every bit as well as Sonny, Slim, or Sally.
Who's the real "original"? I think it goes farther back than any of us are
aware of.
I'm not of the opinion that air, vibrations, or music can be "owned". In
this sense, I differ with thousands of lawyers, courts, and judges. I fully
agree with the assessment of said "Byrd", in that music is a gift, to be
shared by all, not fought over in courts of law. Sorry.
BL
Phil...@aol.com
Classical musians used to take a famous musical theme and write variations,
musical decorations, or an improvisation on the basic form. This was considered
high art. The musician who could sit down at the keyboard and play variations
on a theme by Bach (or whoever) off the top of his head was considered a true
virtuoso. Some of these variations were printed up.
They key to these improvisations or variations was that while they were
recognizable as coming from the theme by Bach they were also recognized as a new
work of art.
Today's jazz (since its inception) that focuses on improvisation is
considered one of American's original art forms.
The difference between plagiarism and improvisation/variation is the
plagiarism is clearly identifiable as still (mostly) the original work -- not
something based on improvisation based on the chord changes.
So Muddy basically put new words to old wine.
The Harper's article (worth the read) deals almost exclusively with literary
influences and copying with very little to do with the blues. The difference
between most of the literary examples in the article is that they were
influenced by works but not DIRECT copies, as is the case in the blues tunes, and,
frequently, lyrics.
Somebody said were only about eight tunes for all blues. I believe it. But
what makes the blues so fascinating is that while the form is so limiting (like
a sonnet) you marvel at what can be done despite the limitations of the form.
Like I said in my PSA when I was a day sponsor for the WDET-Detroit public
radio more than a decade ago: "A day without the blues is like a day without
sunshine."
Phil Lloyd
In a message dated 7/1/07 7:35:56 PM, roger...@canterbury.ac.nz writes:
> I Have extracted a paragraph below - which quotes Muddy Waters - in an
> interview with Alan Lomax, from Jonathan Lethem's splendid article ( in the
> Jan. 2007 Harpers Magazine / online ) entitled - The ecstacy of influence: A
> Plagiarism. Lethems article makes for entertaining reading and comes
> complete with a sucker-punch-surprise-of-an-ending which puts the whole
> notion of creativity & plagiarism in a fresh light.
>
> Begin extracted Quote -
>
> The Ecstasy of Influence:
> by Jonathan Lethem
> 〓In 1941, on his front porch, Muddy Waters recorded a song for the
> folklorist Alan Lomax. After singing the song, which he told Lomax was
> entitled 〓Country Blues,〓 Waters described how he came to write it. 〓I made
> it on about the eighth of October '38,〓 Waters said. 〓I was fixin' a
> puncture on a car. I had been mistreated by a girl. I just felt blue, and
> the song fell into my mind and it come to me just like that and I started
> singing.〓
>
> Then Lomax, who knew of the Robert Johnson recording called 〓Walkin' Blues,〓
>
> asked Waters if there were any other songs that used the same tune. 〓There's
> been some blues played like that,〓 Waters replied. 〓This song comes from
> the
> cotton field and a boy once put a record outRobert Johnson. He put it out
> as named �)-Walkin' Blues.' I heard the tune before I heard it on the record.
> I learned it from Son House.〓
>
> In nearly one breath, Waters offers five accounts: his own active
> authorship: he 〓made it〓 on a specific date. Then the 〓passive〓
> explanation:
> 〓it come to me just like that.〓 After Lomax raises the question of
> influence, Waters, without shame, misgivings, or trepidation, says that he
> heard a version by Johnson, but that his mentor, Son House, taught it to
> him. In the middle of that complex genealogy, Waters declares that 〓this
> song comes from the cotton field.〓
> End Quote
>
> My mother came from the cotton fields ( daughter of a share-cropper ) and
> sang songs ( on her own and in bands ) she learned from black and white
> folks she knew there. The first song I ever sang, by myself in my crib,
> turned out later to be a Leadbelly tune. Much later I would hear the
> melodies and lyric variations of songs -I sang with my Mother - on the radio
> in newer popular country, blues, rock-and-roll, pop and jazz tunes.
>
> I am now a painter and an educator in the arts. I tell my students that the
> creative field is an area of human endeavor where theft ( i.e. Influence, to
> one degree or another ) is not just sanctioned but encouraged and crucial in
> the manufacture of 'new' culture.
> Respectfully Yours
> Roger 'Wader" Boyce
> Expatriate American thief, living in Christchurch, New Zealand
>
> _______________________________________________
> Harp-L is sponsored by SPAH, http://www.spah.org
> Har...@harp-l.org
> http://harp-l.org/mailman/listinfo/harp-l
>
**************************************
See what's free at http://www.aol.com.