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

[PeterG]

3 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?)

Of course, the duration of a patent is an arbitrary number.  You could have easily said patent protection should last longer.  More importantly, there are very important competitive reasons for patents to expire, these do not exist for copyright.

 

I'm not sure why you're asking about 50 years, since your previous post was 20 years?  A large majority of the music I listen to is more than 20 years old.  Guessing at the demographics of this forum, I think that's a fair bet for most of us. 

[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. 

[lucretius]

10 minutes ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

Huh?  2021-50=1971

 

So that's all music from 1971 and before. 

Yes it is.  Unfortunately the copyright term is longer in the US (70 years after the death of the author and in some cases 95 years from publication or 120 years from creation).

[lucretius]

14 minutes ago, PeterG said:

A large majority of the music I listen to is more than 20 years old

 

Me too.  And since I'm not streaming it, there are no royalties involved.

[NOMBEDES]

Beaucoup 50 year box sets on the market.  Stones, Beatles etc etc.

 

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

I somehow missed this thread when the other one went off the rails. If we can keep it civil and focused on music, it will stay. If it devolves into intolerant rants, then it will get nuked. 
 

I’ve had a PM conversation with another member for the last several days about echo chambers, intolerance, and the general realities of the world / internet. It’s disheartening to read people unwilling to accept opinions of others. With that said, here’s my opinion on this topic. 
 

I think cultural appropriation is BS, and this includes music (to keep it on topic). There was always someone doing it before whoever you’re talking about. Everyone is influenced by those who came before them. It’s how the world works and fortunately how education works. We learn from those who’ve gone before us, so we can increase our knowledge. 
 

When I see many cultural appropriation arguments involving music, the discussion usually stops a generation or two back. Why is that? Perhaps written records aren’t good? Perhaps it doesn’t fit one’s outlook on the situation. Perhaps we just don’t know? 
 

A discussion of cultural appropriation in music, which I personally think is BS, mustn’t stop with the artists we know. It should go back a couple hundred thousand years at least. What’s the logical conclusion of this BS topic? The first person to play music is the originator and all other music has been appropriated. Yes, that’s absurd. I know. 
 

My point remains, humans are influenced by other humans. There have always been cover bands, thieves, and those who make something their own, in addition to those who seemingly create something from from nothing. 
 

I respect all the opinions disagreeing with mine and all those who disagree. Different points of view are like options, they are healthy and I like them. 

[sphinxsix]

 

In general like I said it earlier on the evaporated thread I tend to agree with Chris.

Just one remark - be ready to admit that the 'inspiration' came from the others.

In particular if you're White and these others are Black...

 

 

 

 

 

[Iving]

11 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

I think cultural appropriation is BS, and this includes music

A discussion of cultural appropriation in music, which I personally think is BS

 

I missed whatever went down yesterday evening that resulted in "nuking" of the "Thesis: Appropriation" thread - and I don't refer to whatever that was.

As I read it, there are two main problems with a blanket statement holding that, in relation to music, Cultural Appropriation is BS. Especially if the owner of an Audiophile/Music site asserts the same as a post-nuke verdict on "intolerant rants". I emphasise I wasn't party, or even witness, to those rants.

 

1.
I can see that "Cultural Appropriation is BS":
e.g. #1 white dopeheads wear fake dreadlocks - who cares
e.g. #2 social manoeuvring - "I side with minorities" without accompanying substantial argument
e.g. #3 pernicious - stoking the fires of victimhood for primary purpose of social/political unrest
e.g. #4 pernicious - promoting instead of dissolving human "difference"
However
We all agree, surely, that music evolves.

But this, of itself, does not mean that Appropriation is non-existent or irrelevant.
Just as in the progress of Science and the Arts - nothing appears out of nowhere. There is always an unravelling towards the present - no matter how "creative" some new form of something.
Few would argue that Rock 'n' Roll (pre-Beatles) is an American phenomenon.

Blues > R&B > Rock 'n' Roll.

It was pretty much Black to its climax c. 1947. I make the case myself - and there are plenty of informed/detailed arguments presented elsewhere.

Early 1950s saw Elvis, Haley etc., many of whose hits are presumed to be their own inventions - "Shake, Rattle And Roll", "Good Rockin' Tonight". But these are Black compositions a decade or so earlier.
Who gets credit for what is part of an Appropriation argument.
If you Google "Shake, Rattle and Roll", you get result "Song by Bill Haley & The Comets".

So anyone casually researching that tune (think younger generations) draws conclusions implicitly.

These lack primary context.

This is arguably "Appropriation".

You may not consider it an important issue - you may say or think who cares who first wrote or performed something - but it *is* an Appropriation issue by any sensible understanding of what Appropriation means.

And some people do care about plagiarism. It matters even when it is accidental/implicit.
By far the greatest Appropriation argument relates to the economic power that drove the explosion of Rock 'n' Roll into the commercial mainstream - and thus the American/Worldwide 20th Century zeitgeist.

On air play - promotion - pocket money spending on vinyl records.

Need I expand on economic skew. And how that skew created implicit distortions in the lore of popular music.

Again - "Appropriation" by any sensible interpretation.

 

2.
A hobby site that is inclusive - or wishes to be inclusive - would naturally have a proportionate membership.
Honestly I just don't know whether the membership of AS is "proportionate" culturally speaking.
I know it's mainly a male pursuit - and thus we expect mainly males on any audio forum.
There are few women - I am aware of only one on AS. And women audiophiles might not want to join in male banter. Still - if 10% of all audiophiles are women, we might aspire to 10% female membership.
The same principle applies to socio-cultural background.
Any which way - I do imagine that the culture of the site as promulgated by its owner is relevant to inclusivity - and that our owner values inclusivity.

 

"I think cultural appropriation is BS, and this includes music" / "A discussion of cultural appropriation in music, which I personally think is BS" looks too strident to my eyes.

 

btw - fwiw - Eric Clapton is usually more than eager to acknowledge influences. He wants to be known as someone who revived what was begun by others. That is his reputation.

[Samuel T Cogley]

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

[The Computer Audiophile]

1 hour ago, Iving said:

 

I missed whatever went down yesterday evening that resulted in "nuking" of the "Thesis: Appropriation" thread - and I don't refer to whatever that was.

As I read it, there are two main problems with a blanket statement holding that, in relation to music, Cultural Appropriation is BS. Especially if the owner of an Audiophile/Music site asserts the same as a post-nuke verdict on "intolerant rants". I emphasise I wasn't party, or even witness, to those rants.

 

1.
I can see that "Cultural Appropriation is BS":
e.g. #1 white dopeheads wear fake dreadlocks - who cares
e.g. #2 social manoeuvring - "I side with minorities" without accompanying substantial argument
e.g. #3 pernicious - stoking the fires of victimhood for primary purpose of social/political unrest
e.g. #4 pernicious - promoting instead of dissolving human "difference"
However
We all agree, surely, that music evolves.

But this, of itself, does not mean that Appropriation is non-existent or irrelevant.
Just as in the progress of Science and the Arts - nothing appears out of nowhere. There is always an unravelling towards the present - no matter how "creative" some new form of something.
Few would argue that Rock 'n' Roll (pre-Beatles) is an American phenomenon.

Blues > R&B > Rock 'n' Roll.

It was pretty much Black to its climax c. 1947. I make the case myself - and there are plenty of informed/detailed arguments presented elsewhere.

Early 1950s saw Elvis, Haley etc., many of whose hits are presumed to be their own inventions - "Shake, Rattle And Roll", "Good Rockin' Tonight". But these are Black compositions a decade or so earlier.
Who gets credit for what is part of an Appropriation argument.
If you Google "Shake, Rattle and Roll", you get result "Song by Bill Haley & The Comets".

So anyone casually researching that tune (think younger generations) draws conclusions implicitly.

These lack primary context.

This is arguably "Appropriation".

You may not consider it an important issue - you may say or think who cares who first wrote or performed something - but it *is* an Appropriation issue by any sensible understanding of what Appropriation means.

And some people do care about plagiarism. It matters even when it is accidental/implicit.
By far the greatest Appropriation argument relates to the economic power that drove the explosion of Rock 'n' Roll into the commercial mainstream - and thus the American/Worldwide 20th Century zeitgeist.

On air play - promotion - pocket money spending on vinyl records.

Need I expand on economic skew. And how that skew created implicit distortions in the lore of popular music.

Again - "Appropriation" by any sensible interpretation.

 

2.
A hobby site that is inclusive - or wishes to be inclusive - would naturally have a proportionate membership.
Honestly I just don't know whether the membership of AS is "proportionate" culturally speaking.
I know it's mainly a male pursuit - and thus we expect mainly males on any audio forum.
There are few women - I am aware of only one on AS. And women audiophiles might not want to join in male banter. Still - if 10% of all audiophiles are women, we might aspire to 10% female membership.
The same principle applies to socio-cultural background.
Any which way - I do imagine that the culture of the site as promulgated by its owner is relevant to inclusivity - and that our owner values inclusivity.

 

"I think cultural appropriation is BS, and this includes music" / "A discussion of cultural appropriation in music, which I personally think is BS" looks too strident to my eyes.

 

btw - fwiw - Eric Clapton is usually more than eager to acknowledge influences. He wants to be known as someone who revived what was begun by others. That is his reputation.

 

Thanks for the thoughtful reply. I certainly don't agree with it, but I like reading it. 

 

As a business owner, it makes sense for me to want everyone here no matter who they are. As a person, I also want everyone here, no matter who they are. 

 

I noticed you stoped backing up in time at Blues when you wrote "Blues > R&B > Rock 'n' Roll"

 

Why did you not go back before Blues to see who influenced the great blues players? Do you think the great Blues players appropriated anything? Serious questions.

 

I really have a hard time understanding sentences like, "Few would argue that Rock 'n' Roll (pre-Beatles) is an American phenomenon." Isn't that like saying few would argue the Earth is flat? 

 

 

[Iving]

4 minutes ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

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

 

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.

[Iving]

7 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Thanks for the thoughtful reply. I certainly don't agree with it, but I like reading it.

 

Great - ty

 

8 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

As a business owner, it makes sense for me to want everyone here no matter who they are. As a person, I also want everyone here, no matter who they are.

 

Even better. That was the point of my post. We are on the same page. ty

 

8 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

I noticed you stoped backing up in time at Blues when you wrote "Blues > R&B > Rock 'n' Roll"

Why did you not go back before Blues to see who influenced the great blues players? Do you think the great Blues players appropriated anything? Serious questions.

 

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.

 

11 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

I really have a hard time understanding sentences like, "Few would argue that Rock 'n' Roll (pre-Beatles) is an American phenomenon." Isn't that like saying few would argue the Earth is flat?

 

Not at all. Even Russians know that Rock 'n' Roll was born in the USA. I don't have to explain this.

[semente]

I remember the cultural "exploitation" cries when Paul Simon's  launched his "Graceland" album.

[The Computer Audiophile]

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 :~)

 

 

 

[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

 

[Iving]

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.

 

24 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

From who and what did the folk artists appropriate?

 

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.

 

24 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

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.

 

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 evolution 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!

 

24 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

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."

 

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.

 

24 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Are there specific musical instances you think are unacknowledged (certainly there are some) and what is "inappropriate adoption of the customs, practices, ideas?"

 

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

 

24 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

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

 

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

[Iving]

3 minutes ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

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

 

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.

[The Computer Audiophile]

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. 

 

 

 

[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.

 

 

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

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]"

[Iving]

13 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

A definition is a must.

 

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.

 

13 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

we need one or two elements, 1. Unacknowledged or 2. Inappropriate

 

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.

 

13 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

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.

 

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.

 

13 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

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.

 

I have explained.

 

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

 

[Iving]

12 minutes ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

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.

 

Don't know anything about the Beatles and royalty theft.

 

McC and JL acknowledged Chuck Berry for instance. Probably lots more.

[Iving]

4 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

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]"

 

We are agreed about ancient music.

 

My point to you is contradicting "Appropriation is BS" with 20th Century Rock 'n' Roll.

 

I explained fully in my first post.

 

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

[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.  🙂

[Iving]

1 minute ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

Too many armchair psychologists, too.  🙂

 

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.