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

[The Computer Audiophile]

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?

[Iving]

10 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

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

 

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.

[The Computer Audiophile]

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. 

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

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. 

[Iving]

Just now, The Computer Audiophile said:

you constantly want to point fingers at everyone else

 

False

[Iving]

1 minute ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Give me a break. 

 

I need one myself.

[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.

 

 

 

[Iving]

1 minute ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

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 you're cake and eating it too?  Explain how I'm not understanding you, please.

 

I didn't talk about royalty theft. That was your topic. I don't have reverence for the Beatles. All I said was Rock 'n' Roll pre-Beatles. Then I answered you to explain how all 4 acknowledged American influences.

 

Chris wants a break. So do I. Please could you quit quoting me. Thank you. Have a nice day.

[Samuel T Cogley]

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

[Iving]

10 minutes ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

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

 

My first post did not refer to royalty theft.

 

By Appropriation I did not mean royalty theft.

 

I explained what I did mean -

mainly credit for Black compositions and musical originality cf. hits of Elvis, Haley "Shake Rattle & Roll" etc -

also economic power driving the music industry and distortions in the lore of pop music.

 

I don't revere the Beatles. I revere American Rock 'n' Roll. I made a case about it that seems in line with your view - not at odds with it.

 

Please can we be done for today at least.

 

Edit: I realise you did not quote me this time. Thank you.

[DuckToller]

Folks,

i may interpret the discussion wrongly from my Safe European Home, but I do sniff a cultural difference between American culture and the European one (includes UK this time, sorry) about how to interpret

a) CA
b) the origins of RnR

I came to understand that the deep divide by skin color over centuries has a bigger & different cultural impact in North America as it had for example in Northern Europe, like i.e. Norway.
Given I don't err here, the pros/cons in that discussion may come from different playing fields, which inhibits decades of approximation towards a consensus what is appropriate and what is appropriation. A discussion that - in my view - seems to have just slowly started in Europe outside of academic circles somewhen after the millenium.

Living in a country that meanwhile show tendencies to roll back positive efforts of integration, which I personally find quite ridiculous,  I must wonder if Irving's position (a quite liberal, white & British one) may lack some understanding for the sensitiveness for the North American soul ? I may fall into that trap, too, regularly ?

Personally I do still wonder how I have to deal with my "white privilege" as I did not chose my heritage.
However, I can see that the term is poignant in cultural discussion nowadays, sometimes for a good reasons and sometimes not.
I am somehow happy, that I ain't need to discuss that with fellow students at the university campus nowadays for an orientation into that subject, which in my view is strongly connected to CA, because this feels like a can of snakes ...

 

[Iving]

I post briefly - mainly as a correction to self.

In my first post, one line read, "Few would argue that Rock 'n' Roll (pre-Beatles) is an American phenomenon."

It should have read, "Few would argue that Rock 'n' Roll (pre-Beatles) is *not* an American phenomenon."

My mistake. Mea culpa. And I can see how some crossed wires in recent posts came about if the drift of my whole post was obscured.

I absolutely meant the corrected version of course.

It has been abundantly evident from my first post in this thread, and all my participation on this Forum, that:
- I love rock 'n' roll.
- I love American rock 'n' roll.
- I am particularly partial to Rockabilly.
- I have posted often about the history of pop music.
- I care about provenance.
- I have demonstrated this in the Covers thread (and elsewhere) on many occasions.
- My first post in this thread was plainly about 20th Century rock 'n' roll, credit where due - especially to early 20th Century Blues and R&B, and economic imbalance worldwide as it affected the explosion of all recent pop music.
- I tend to be progressive rather than conservative in my outlook.
- I tend to be universal rather than parochial in my thinking.
- I am far more interested in common ground than conflict.
If I may add - I am not an armchair anything!

Leaving my virtues aside, I committed a simple grammatical omission - and apologise for any and all consequences of that in particular. If I haven't been clear in other ways - well - perhaps I am not the worst offender.

My good wishes to all

[NOMBEDES]

"Oh Susanna.  Stephen Collins Foster was born in Lawrenceville, PA in July 1826.

At age 20 he became a bookkeeper but his song "Oh Susanna" was pirated by a minstrel singer, published without his knowledge and became the anthem of the California gold miners.

 

As a way to start his song-writing career Foster "gave" the song to the W.C. Perters Publishing Co.  Although it made him famous, he never received a penny for the song.

 

~ according to Jon Gendick (Harmonica Americana)

[NOMBEDES]

2 hours ago, Iving said:

 

My first post did not refer to royalty theft.

 

By Appropriation I did not mean royalty theft.

 

I explained what I did mean -

mainly credit for Black compositions and musical originality cf. hits of Elvis, Haley "Shake Rattle & Roll" etc -

also economic power driving the music industry and distortions in the lore of pop music.

 

I don't revere the Beatles. I revere American Rock 'n' Roll. I made a case about it that seems in line with your view - not at odds with it.

 

Please can we be done for today at least.

 

Edit: I realise you did not quote me this time. Thank you.

 

BREXIT IS BS!  Hurts UK artists (Music) not to mention the entire Kingdom......(suggestion for new, fun thread)  

[christopher3393]

 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.

[The Computer Audiophile]

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. 

[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.

[The Computer Audiophile]

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. 

[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".

[PeterG]

On 10/4/2021 at 4:47 PM, lucretius said:

 

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

You seem to change the discussion repeatedly to something that sidesteps your original assertion that copyright protection on music should lapse after 20 years.  Just to be clear--over the past year I have purchased dozens, maybe over 100, CDs with music over 20 years old.  I would guess that most people on the forum are also paying money, in one way or another, for music that is more than 20 years old. 

 

All of these artists deserve to get paid

[fas42]

Fairness is not part of human society, and most likely will not be thoroughly intertwined with how the world works for generations yet - universal basic income is still too controversial to come on board, yet the equivalent of that has existed in 'primitive' tribes for tens of thousand of years - very successfully.

 

Western society just loves the concept that some people are more special than others; because they are able to create more wealth, and then have access to more, and more importantly, more exclusive toys - unfairness is always part of that package, no matter how you slice and dice the situation.

 

Music is caught up in that as well, as just another part of the human condition ... jumping up and down about there not being a level playing field in music is pointless, unless the wider scope of how some people benefit more from others from the evolution of society, "unfairly", is addressed ...

[DuckToller]

33 minutes ago, PeterG said:

All of these artists deserve to get paid

I agree with that for the artist's sake.
I buy continuosly music 2nd hand via Discogs (often older than 20+ years) because it is not available in catalogues or artist direct.
However, could you explain how artists have participated directly on your 100+ CD's bonanza you have had last year?
Did you buy at bandcamp or other artist's direct pages?
I might imagine that - in general - artist's pay out comes contractually from the numbers of prints minus the returns (minus everthing else contratcually accepted). Sadly, I fear, that the payout for most CD's you've bought, had been already happened.
En plus:

There are 4 buckets in the music industry when it comes to copyright/publishing:

Bucket 1: Writer/Composer/Lyricist

Bucket 2: Publisher

Bucket 3: Artist

Bucket 4: Master Owner/Record Company
here

[PeterG]

1 hour ago, DuckToller said:

I agree with that for the artist's sake.
I buy continuosly music 2nd hand via Discogs (often older than 20+ years) because it is not available in catalogues or artist direct.
However, could you explain how artists have participated directly on your 100+ CD's bonanza you have had last year?
Did you buy at bandcamp or other artist's direct pages?
I might imagine that - in general - artist's pay out comes contractually from the numbers of prints minus the returns (minus everthing else contratcually accepted). Sadly, I fear, that the payout for most CD's you've bought, had been already happened.
En plus:

There are 4 buckets in the music industry when it comes to copyright/publishing:

Bucket 1: Writer/Composer/Lyricist

Bucket 2: Publisher

Bucket 3: Artist

Bucket 4: Master Owner/Record Company
here

 

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).

[The Computer Audiophile]

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. 

[AnotherSpin]

What do those who insist on the thesis of cultural appropriation mean? What exactly has been appropriated? If we are talking about instruments and sound, it is mainly the white man's invention. Trumpets, saxophones, guitars, keyboard instruments, and electric amplification, basically everything except the drums. And then, the modern drum kit developed by whites is very different from the primitive congas. Lyrics? I don't see the point in even starting to compare. The primitive hormone-fueled shriek of a male ready to ejaculate and the complicated meanings and lyrics of white rock bands, there is nothing to even compare. Unless you have a couple of the first Led Zeppelin albums in mind, there's nothing to talk about. Rhythmic figures? OK, that's it? I think the conclusion of cross-pollination inevitably follows from the above. Appropriation went in all directions, and that, as some of the panelists have already said, is characteristic of cultural phenomena.