Jump to content
IGNORED

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


Recommended Posts

8 minutes ago, Iving said:

In the nuked thread - before it got crazy enough to nuke - I was very clear about the importance of folk music. How folk precedes everything.

I have been very clear:

We all agree, surely, that music evolves.

But this, of itself, does not mean that Appropriation is non-existent or irrelevant.

And then I explained.

Most of my posts here are about evolution of music.

 

From who and what did the folk artists appropriate?

 

Surely we can keep going back in time a few hundred thousand years right? I prefer to look at this as an evolution of music rather than cultural appropriation. In addition, it isn't enough to suggest cultural appropriation where there is influence. We should also make sure to complete the loop by showing "the unacknowledged or inappropriate adoption of the customs, practices, ideas, etc. of one people or society by members of another and typically more dominant people or society."

 

Perhaps that's my hang up. Are there specific musical instances you think are unacknowledged (certainly there are some) and what is "inappropriate adoption of the customs, practices, ideas?"

 

Keeping this in the musical realm will help us not devolve into a shit show of course :~)

 

 

Screen Shot 2021-10-05 at 9.46.37 AM.png

 

Founder of Audiophile Style | My Audio Systems AudiophileStyleStickerWhite2.0.png AudiophileStyleStickerWhite7.1.4.png

Link to comment
2 minutes ago, Iving said:

You are doing what you often do. You extract tangents, demonstrating that you haven't read/understood the post to which you're responding.

 

I do what I usually do. Answer in good faith anyway. Even though I have to repeat what I've already said.

 

 

My Appropriation case was about 20th Century evolution of Rock 'n' Roll - not folk.

I already explained I understand about the importance of folk.

Most of my posts here are about the "natural" evolution of music.

 

 

Well - humans as a species 200,000 yrs (and still). Out of Africa 70,000. Probably not much commercial or political exploitation of music during that time. I agree with you - most eveolution of music is "natural". Humans influencing each other is "natural". Everything is an eruption of history. I am always saying that.

 

I know what you prefer! I am suggesting something to you for your consideration!

 

 

I explained my case fully. Credit/plagiarism. Even more important - economic power and implicit distortions in lore. I know you won't accept what I say so I gave an academic reference too.

 

 

You're challenging my on your own definitions - not what I said. I already explained about "Shake, Rattle & Roll" etc.

 

 

No need for a shit show when I'm in town.

 

A definition is a must. That's why I posted a simple one. If we don't agree on what we're talking about, then we'll never get anywhere. It seems that we need one or two elements, 1. Unacknowledged or 2. Inappropriate 

 

I raise my issues of going back further because it's a big evolution and not cultural appropriation. Sure, there have been some reprehensible people in the music business over the years, but based on my limited music knowledge it seems like most artists enjoy giving credit to those who came before them. That's kind of the opposite of cultural appropriation. 

 

I also think if people are to claim cultural appropriation they need to show what's "inappropriate adoption of the customs, practices, ideas." Musically, I don't see how it's inappropriate to adopt the customs, practices, or ideas of anyone? Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. 

 

Last, you seem to not understand my tone.  Suggesting you "Answer in good faith anyway" is strange to me. I always answer in good faith. Why wouldn't you? The use of the term "anyway" makes it seem like I am not, but you are. That makes it tough to have a conversation with you when you believe I'm not answering in good faith. 

 

 

 

Founder of Audiophile Style | My Audio Systems AudiophileStyleStickerWhite2.0.png AudiophileStyleStickerWhite7.1.4.png

Link to comment
20 minutes ago, Iving said:

Well - humans as a species 200,000 yrs (and still). Out of Africa 70,000.

Do we really need to argue over little things attempting to be correct and score points? I'd say no. I used this as my reference. 

 

"Music first arose in the Paleolithic period,[51] though it remains unclear as to whether this was the Middle (300,000 to 50,000 BP) or Upper Paleolithic(50,000 to 12,000 BP).[52]"

Founder of Audiophile Style | My Audio Systems AudiophileStyleStickerWhite2.0.png AudiophileStyleStickerWhite7.1.4.png

Link to comment
Just now, Iving said:

 

Well - obviously that is a personal remark. An unpleasant and unnecessary culmination of your complete misunderstanding of my position and how it chimes with yours.

 

If nobody understands your positions, perhaps you could offer different explanations that more people can understand?

Founder of Audiophile Style | My Audio Systems AudiophileStyleStickerWhite2.0.png AudiophileStyleStickerWhite7.1.4.png

Link to comment
12 minutes ago, Iving said:

 

No it is not.

 

You are resorting to external authority.

 

You can develop an argument from first principles.

 

Anyway - you used your own definition as a pivot for my remarks.

 

As already explained.

 

 

I gave an argument about:

 

1. credit / plagiarism

 

2. economic power and distortions in lore

 

What more do you want?

 

You are picking on me about no difference.

 

Because you haven't digested my post.

 

 

You are looking for conflict when there is none.

 

My argument was about 20th Century Rock 'n' Roll - a counterpoint to "Appropriation is BS". My argument is clear enough.

 

Otherwise I agree about imitation is flattery etc.

 

 

I have explained.

 

You challenge me on a tangent demonstrating that you haven't understood my post. I answer anyway repeating myself.

 

 

Without a definition nobody has any idea what you're talking about. 

 

Your favorite color is red but you want to suggest that we needn't select which of these colors is red in order to discuss the beauties of the color red. I'm out. I really wanted to understand where you are coming from and have a good discussion, but you constantly want to point fingers at everyone else for not understanding and not talking in good faith. Perhaps it's time to look in the mirror. 

 

colorwheel.cmyk.png

Founder of Audiophile Style | My Audio Systems AudiophileStyleStickerWhite2.0.png AudiophileStyleStickerWhite7.1.4.png

Link to comment
Just now, 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 post properly I would encourage that.

 

How's the view from that high horse? Give me a break. 

Founder of Audiophile Style | My Audio Systems AudiophileStyleStickerWhite2.0.png AudiophileStyleStickerWhite7.1.4.png

Link to comment
3 minutes ago, christopher3393 said:

So... even though when I've read histories of the blues there are many examples of what I would call blantant "racism"as well as many significant ethical concerns  that raise questions about issues of fairness and "race", I wonder if we have to go back to the drawing board for other language and concepts to talk about those things? "Cultural Appropriation" just may be b.s. (bird s**t) imo.

+ 100
 

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

Founder of Audiophile Style | My Audio Systems AudiophileStyleStickerWhite2.0.png AudiophileStyleStickerWhite7.1.4.png

Link to comment
13 minutes ago, christopher3393 said:

 I'd like to recommend a couple of articles that address this topic well without getting too heady. I think one was mentioned in a very helpful post in the nuked thread:

 

Why Is Everyone Always Stealing Black Music?

 

White people, blues music and the problem of cultural appropriation

 

Before you wince, know that both articles say that the concept of cultural appropriation doesn't get at the complexity of the reality. There are lots of contradictions and gray areas. I enjoyed reading both and learned from them.

 

This final reference is written in academic-ese. It is abstract, dense, and jargon-laden. But it also argues for the inadequacy of the concept and I tend to agree with it. Part 4 is the key piece and the critique of the notion of "cultural essentialism", which the author claims is presupposed by the concept of cultural appropriation frequently:

 

The Ethics of Cultural Heritage: 4. Cultural Appropriation

 

So... even though when I've read histories of the blues there are many examples of what I would call blantant "racism"as well as many significant ethical concerns  that raise questions about issues of fairness and "race", I wonder if we have to go back to the drawing board for other language and concepts to talk about those things? "Cultural Appropriation" just may be b.s. (bird s**t) imo.

Interesting. I just read your second link. At first I almost puked because I disagreed with the guy so much. But, I like how the article came around. I can’t say if his facts are right, but if they are, it’s a compelling case that cultural appropriation of music is a terrible way to describe it. 
 

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

It would be a utopia if we could all just say a song written for someone who had modest success, that was later sung by another person who made it huge. I get there are long painful histories, but at least I can dream of a world where the descriptions of people such as black/white, Jewish/Christian/Muslim, Man/Woman don’t need to be the crux of the story. Certainly owning one’s attributes, heritage, religion is great, but it doesn’t define us as people. 

Founder of Audiophile Style | My Audio Systems AudiophileStyleStickerWhite2.0.png AudiophileStyleStickerWhite7.1.4.png

Link to comment
13 minutes ago, PeterG said:

 

Excellent questions.  I buy the majority of CDs from Amazon, and direct from artists when I can.  In both of these cases, artists are getting paid royalties (or more).  I don't understand why you think they are not getting royalties from these.  Even if the formula is as you say, the royalty amount is going up because of higher prints or lower returns.

 

Like you, I buy out of print stuff from Discogs, and the artists do not get paid (oh well, it's only 10-20% of what I buy).


I think there are many unknowns when it comes to artist remuneration. Plus, not all contracts are equal. I talked to an author recently who told me he didn’t care if I purchased his book from Amazon, a local bookstore, or via download, even though the prices were drastically different. He’d already been paid and received nothing from further sales. Yes, that’s an author but it’s an example of a consumer (me) not really knowing the details of how people get paid. 


We often assume purchasing a CD means more artist money all the time. I’m not so sure that’s the case. 

Founder of Audiophile Style | My Audio Systems AudiophileStyleStickerWhite2.0.png AudiophileStyleStickerWhite7.1.4.png

Link to comment
5 minutes ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

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?

 

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. 

Founder of Audiophile Style | My Audio Systems AudiophileStyleStickerWhite2.0.png AudiophileStyleStickerWhite7.1.4.png

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.



×
×
  • Create New...