I Am a Big Eric Clapton Fan. Cultural Appropriation is BS

[Samuel T Cogley]

The theft of black blues started way before the '60s.

 

Exhibit A:

 

 

 

Now Benny Goodman and Peggy Lee just two years later:

 

 

Funny thing is, this tune started as " The Weed Smoker's Dream" in 1936:

 

Quote

 

In 1936, the Harlem Hamfats recorded "The Weed Smoker's Dream". Band member McCoy later rewrote the song, refining the composition and lyrics. The new tune, titled "Why Don't You Do Right?", was recorded by Lil Green in 1941,^[2] with guitar by William "Big Bill" Broonzy. The recording was an early jazz and blues hit.^[3]

The song has its roots in blues music and originally dealt with a marijuana smoker reminiscing about lost financial opportunities. As it was rewritten, it takes on the perspective of the female partner, who chastises her man for his irresponsible ways: "Why don't you do right, like some other men do? Get out of here and get me some money too."

 

 

[Samuel T Cogley]

And something a little more recent, from this Wikipedia page:

 

Quote

Without songwriter Willie Dixon's knowledge, Arc Music, the music publishing arm of Chess Records, brought a claim against Led Zeppelin for using "Bring It On Home" without its permission.^[1] The group maintained that they copied parts of the song as an intentional tribute to Williamson, but resolved the matter with an undisclosed cash settlement.^[1] For the 2003 live album How the West Was Won, the song was credited to Dixon alone, with the note "Medley contains 'Bring It On Back' (Jimmy Page/Robert Plant/John Paul Jones/John Bonham)".^[8] On the 2014 Led Zeppelin II reissue, Dixon is listed as the sole songwriter.^[9]

 

[Samuel T Cogley]

6 minutes ago, lucretius said:

I just don't think that copyright protection should last far longer than patent protection.  (How much 50 year old stuff are you streaming anyway?)

Huh?  2021-50=1971

 

So that's all music from 1971 and before. 

[Samuel T Cogley]

How does that omphaloskepsis tome square with actual publishing royalty theft?  Is that theft just a natural progression of this "Appropriation"?

[Samuel T Cogley]

1 minute ago, Iving said:

 

I'm sorry - I just don't see why my post should be regarded by you or anyone as navel-gazing. There is no obsession. I presented a big-picture counterpoint to "Appropriation is BS".

 

I don't have an opinion worth expressing on "royalty theft". Why don't you explain yours if you have one.

 

Let's start with when "Rock and Roll" began?  Perhaps focusing more on the 1950s, you know, that time before The Beatles?

 

Have a look here if you want to read more

 

Quote

Music scholars have noted that Black artists, as a class of performers, routinely found their works appropriated and exploited by publishers and managers.8 7 The publishers typically (although hardly always)8 were white.8 9 As a result, Black artists as a class were denied the economic benefits of the copyright system. The prolific exploitation of Black artists casts doubt on the value and neutrality of legally sanctioned economic incentives. The copyright system did not protect Black artists as class from disproportionate economic and cultural exploitation and appropriation of the fruits of their works.90 Yet Black artists, even as slaves, continued to produce original works. This suggests that people from non- western cultures would create original works even without financial incentives. 9' For example, Black American slaves created an impressive body of musical and artistic work, which like their physical labor, went uncompensated.9 2

 

[Samuel T Cogley]

4 minutes ago, Iving said:

 

What?

 

In the nuked thread I gave a full account of Rock 'n' Roll beginning early in the 20th Century.

 

Lately I have been posting mostly Black origins of Rock 'n' Roll thru R&B.

 

Did you see the link in my post. I repeat it here.

 

I am saying that Rock 'n' Roll is an American thing - not a Beatles thing. omg.

 

I love how GH and Ringo adore Carl Perkins. Paul McC and JL acknowledged all their American influences.

 

I think you're mistaking me fully and completely.

 

Your quote:

Music scholars have noted that Black artists, as a class of performers, routinely found their works appropriated and exploited by publishers and managers.8 7 The publishers typically (although hardly always)8 were white.8 9 As a result, Black artists as a class were denied the economic benefits of the copyright system. The prolific exploitation of Black artists casts doubt on the value and neutrality of legally sanctioned economic incentives. The copyright system did not protect Black artists as class from disproportionate economic and cultural exploitation and appropriation of the fruits of their works.90 Yet Black artists, even as slaves, continued to produce original works. This suggests that people from non- western cultures would create original works even without financial incentives. 9' For example, Black American slaves created an impressive body of musical and artistic work, which like their physical labor, went uncompensated.9 2

chimes FULLY with what I am saying.

 

It squares FULLY with the links I gave in my first post in this thread.

 

Please can you read my posts before "challenging" me.

 

Those Fab Four influences were often those who were committing the theft and appropriation we're talking about?  I think some clarity on what exactly is an "American influence" would help clarify your thought for me.

 

 

 

[Samuel T Cogley]

1 minute ago, Iving said:

There's way too much addiction to conflict on this Forum. imo

 

Too many armchair psychologists, too.  🙂

[Samuel T Cogley]

18 minutes ago, Iving said:

 

Nobody? That's quite a generalisation. Is "everybody" sending you PMs as we speak?

 

I don't need to offer different explanations if my first post is self-contained. You have demonstrated in Spades that you haven't understood it. Cogley even worse.

 

Yes - I could dumb down. I don't choose to patronise.

 

If anybody wants to read my first post properly I would encourage that.

 

Where it's murky for me is your apparent understanding of "appropriation" and even outright royalty theft juxtaposed with your apparent reverence for The Beatles.  It seems to me like having your cake and eating it too?  Explain how I'm not understanding you, please.

 

 

 

[Samuel T Cogley]

You can't separate "appropriation" from royalty theft.  "Appropriation" is just a softened way to say, "royalty theft".

[Samuel T Cogley]

8 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

+ 100
 

The music business is gross. There have been some terrible injustices, but I just can’t agree with calling it cultural appropriation. 

 

That's why I use the word, theft.

[Samuel T Cogley]

1 minute ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

A song written by a couple white Jewish guys, sung by a black lady, and made huge by a white guy who sounded black.

 

Unfortunately, Hound Dog is often used to muddy the waters in discussions of royalty theft.  Think of it as a kind of "both-siderism".

[Samuel T Cogley]

There will always be a segment of the population that puts forth self serving rhetoric that essentially embraces the status quo.  Statements like:

 

• "everyone stole from everyone, so there is no such thing as "appropriation""
• "whatever happened wasn't my fault, so I just don't care if the music I like has a checkered past"
• "political correctness has just gone too far and must be stopped"
• "my favorite band(s) acknowledged/apologized for appropriation, so nothing to see there"

 

There will always be that element that pushes back when the truth of how our society got to this point is revealed.  Some will just reject it as lies.  Others will respond with apathy.  Still others, perhaps feeling a twinge of guilt themselves, will attempt to soften the vocabulary of oppression and theft in a naked attempt to salvage self esteem.

 

And then there's the record companies and all the shady business practices that come with them.  But is content really more important than how that content got made?  Is the content more important than its provenance?

 

[Samuel T Cogley]

On 10/6/2021 at 10:26 AM, The Computer Audiophile said:

Interesting take STC. Thanks for the honest comments. I agree with some and not others, but it’s hard to argue with sentences that say “there will always be a segment of the population.” In a way those are weasel words. No offense meant. 
 

Do you see anyone in this thread who you think is in that segment? Not in a confrontational way, just curious if you see others here in your identified segment that you disagree with. 

 

I think this thread has run its course.  I think it's fairly obvious that the affluent, middle-aged white men demographic is over-represented on this forum, and the overall reaction to my post demonstrates that.

 

I'll say finally that I disagree with the OP: appropriation is NOT BS.