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

[Qhwoeprktiyns]

Leiber and Stoller wrote "Kansas City" in 1952, in hommage to Pete Johnson and Joe Turner.

 

Joe Turner and Pete Johnson had performed earlier (first in 1947 I believe) a song called "Kansas City Blues". Both songs famously refer to a corner of Vine street in Kansas city, though in one case it is 18th street (an actual corner), in the other 12th street (no such corner in KC).

 

 

Some of their earlier work, such as "Roll Em Pete" are perhaps a better model. This one dates from 1938 !

 

 

 

 

Lieber/Stoller's song was first played by Litle Willie Littlefield in 1953:

 

 

Here's the Beatles version in 1964

 

 

Muddy Waters in 1976

 

 

 

 

There are many others...

[Qhwoeprktiyns]

Here's the historical corner of 18th and Vine !

 

 

 

Edit: it turns out there was an actual intersection between 12th street and Vine street, but a project was build there.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/18th_and_Vine_–_Downtown_East,_Kansas_City

 

[Priaptor]

7 hours ago, AnotherSpin said:

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.

I agree. 

 

Personally, while there are those on this thread who have commented to the contrary, I think the term "cultural appropriation" in today's world, has been weaponized. We can literally cherry pick any time in history, where the future benefits from the past and claim "cultural appropriation" from a specific "group" of people. IMHO, cultural appropriation is nothing more than a way to divide us further than we are. 

 

I much rather use "cultural appreciation" than appropriation as the former appreciates and honors a culture for their contributions and influences while the latter is used, particularly in today's world, to divide using direct or indirect references to something having been stolen when the real story is usually much more complex. 

 

Where do we want to begin or end with this? Does Michael Jordan owe his success to Hank Luisetti, the latter considered to have invented the "jump shot"? Absurd, on the other hand, for those of us who love (or loved) the game we can and should enjoy "cultural appreciation" that so many before, brought to and contributed to the game as we know it. Guess what, those before, predominantly Irish/Italian/Jews barely made a penny compared to the billions some (predominately blacks) make today. Will we use the "cultural appropriation" metric in the same manner? Or do we use it only when the narrative supports a certain slant. 

 

I personally will stick with cultural appreciation as one of my favorite bands of all time, The Allman Brothers (with Duane), owe and have acknowledged those who preceded them for their great success. 

[firedog]

I think Josh's previous point that it matters whether the appropriation is acknowledged or not. 

So Pat Boone - appropriation. Pure rip off for making bucks.

Beatles, Stones, etc.  - no. They more than acknowledged- they actively promoted the artists they admired, which resulted in more sales and greater appreciation for those they "appropriated".

[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?

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

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. 

[NOMBEDES]

Katy Perry was once accused of the dreaded Cultural Appropriation (CA) for releasing a video with a Japanese motif.

 

What crap.  Any reasonable observer saw no theft or appropriation, the Japanese costumes, the stage set etc served as background to the music video...what needs to be acknowledged?   If a band sets a video on the moon, must they offer a disclaimer regarding the downtrodden lunar citizens ?  

 

@Priaptor(supra) is 100% correct CA has been weaponized!  Give originators their due, and royalties, but this is not something that should be used to further divide us.

[AnotherSpin]

42 minutes ago, firedog said:

I think Josh's previous point that it matters whether the appropriation is acknowledged or not. 

So Pat Boone - appropriation. Pure rip off for making bucks.

Beatles, Stones, etc.  - no. They more than acknowledged- they actively promoted the artists they admired, which resulted in more sales and greater appreciation for those they "appropriated".

 

It is also worth mentioning that some important early blues recordings have survived thanks to the efforts of people like Alan Lomax. It also seems significant that leading recording labels which have been issuing early blues, such as Chess, Alligator, Delmark, Document Records, etc. were founded and run by white enthusiasts. 

[Priaptor]

46 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?

 

Your comments cast a perspective of disdain for those that disagree with something such as the “cultural appropriation” narrative, with the metrics you state as a barometer. Sorry I don’t buy into your narrative and I don’t lie, claim fault and don’t like the PC culture of today, which according to your narrative puts me into some egregious category. 

 

Part of todays issues lie with the absolute comments that some, like you did in your post, make.  Not sure who empowers some with the moral compass of appropriateness  

[firedog]

1 hour ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

There will always be that element that pushes back when the truth of how our society got to this point is revealed.

Whose truth? Yours? 

There are multiple ways to understand the past. And there certainly isn't a consensus about it - among both Whites and Blacks, as well as others.  And also among specialist scholars.

 

I don't deny oppression, racism, or that cultural appropriation can happen. That doesn't mean that every time someone makes an accusation of it that they are correct. Like lots of things in life, the truth isn't necessarily simple or, excuse the expression, black and white.

 

Your post sounds more like "self serving rhetoric" to back up your POV. 

[John Dyson]

7 minutes ago, firedog said:

3 hours ago, Priaptor said:

I agree. 

 

Personally, while there are those on this thread who have commented to the contrary, I think the term "cultural appropriation" in today's world, has been weaponized. We can literally cherry pick any time in history, where the future benefits from the past and claim "cultural appropriation" from a specific "group" of people. IMHO, cultural appropriation is nothing more than a way to divide us further than we are. 

 

I much rather use "cultural appreciation" than appropriation as the former appreciates and honors a culture for their contributions and influences while the latter is used, particularly in today's world, to divide using direct or indirect references to something having been stolen when the real story is usually much more complex. 

 

Where do we want to begin or end with this? Does Michael Jordan owe his success to Hank Luisetti, the latter considered to have invented the "jump shot"? Absurd, on the other hand, for those of us who love (or loved) the game we can and should enjoy "cultural appreciation" that so many before, brought to and contributed to the game as we know it. Guess what, those before, predominantly Irish/Italian/Jews barely made a penny compared to the billions some (predominately blacks) make today. Will we use the "cultural appropriation" metric in the same manner? Or do we use it only when the narrative supports a certain slant. 

 

I personally will stick with cultural appreciation as one of my favorite bands of all time, The Allman Brothers (with Duane), owe and have acknowledged those who preceded them for their great success. 

 

I agree.   As a technology person, I tend to think in terms of technological developments.   Is using a TV 'cultural appropriation'.? Is using a telephone, 'cultural appropriation'?   Is using a light bulb with the Edison connector or Salk vaccine, 'cultural appropriation' (or 'transistor', or ....)    None of this 'appropriation' thing, makes any sense, be it music, technology or any other thing.   People together are much smarter and much more creative than segregated groups of people.

 

It seems to me that 'cultural appropriation' when used in a current political sense is primarily a weapon against a single group of people.  To me, being 'divisive' is so 'yesterday' and pre-1950s.   I suggest that people who tend to be accepting and interested will tend to benefit us all.   The blame-game isn't helpful to anyone.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[AudioDoctor]

16 minutes ago, John Dyson said:

   Is using a TV 'cultural appropriation'.? Is using a telephone, 'cultural appropriation'?   Is using a light bulb with the Edison connector or Salk vaccine, 'cultural appropriation' (or 'transistor', or ....)    None of this 'appropriation' thing, makes any sense, be it music, technology or any other thing. 

 

Other than music, none of those things are part of any one races culture.

 

I made a comment earlier in this thread about where the British Invasion bands acquired the music and the sounds they brought to America. As I am sure most of you know, it was America. Specifically the Blues that African American artists were making here, but wasn't being appreciated, and who went to Europe to more appreciative audiences. When it came back it was being played by White people and was far more widely accepted. I am not making any judgements here on who is guilty of this or that, this is just facts. Another fact about that is that there is nothing we can do about it. It's in the past and done. I got to thinking about it and thought, well where did American blues come from? That would be slaves using hymns they learned from the white slave owners and the rhythms they brought with them from Africa and used for entertainment or to send signals to each other in the course of their daily lives. That's when I stopped, only because I don't have any knowledge to go back any further. The only truth is that there will always be stuff in our past we don't like, and the only thing we can do about it is move forward with more understanding. I think America currently is being held hostage by the extremes on both sides and the debate of Cultural Appropriation is just one example.

[John Dyson]

46 minutes ago, AudioDoctor said:

 

Other than music, none of those things are part of any one races culture.

 

I made a comment earlier in this thread about where the British Invasion bands acquired the music and the sounds they brought to America. As I am sure most of you know, it was America. Specifically the Blues that African American artists were making here, but wasn't being appreciated, and who went to Europe to more appreciative audiences. When it came back it was being played by White people and was far more widely accepted. I am not making any judgements here on who is guilty of this or that, this is just facts. Another fact about that is that there is nothing we can do about it. It's in the past and done. I got to thinking about it and thought, well where did American blues come from? That would be slaves using hymns they learned from the white slave owners and the rhythms they brought with them from Africa and used for entertainment or to send signals to each other in the course of their daily lives. That's when I stopped, only because I don't have any knowledge to go back any further. The only truth is that there will always be stuff in our past we don't like, and the only thing we can do about it is move forward with more understanding. I think America currently is being held hostage by the extremes on both sides and the debate of Cultural Appropriation is just one example.

I somewhat disagree...   There has been a very strong 'tinkering' culture in certain groups of people.   It is a big part of my life, for example.  Through the 1850s through approx 2000, there used to be lots more of 'me' than nowadays as most people are playing games on their Iphones and talking on Facebook/etc.   There HAS been a cultural shift.

IMO, it is *very* wrong to automatically dismiss creations and realtively more pronounced behavior of a single culture as being 'not cultural'.   Not everyone of a single culture created different forms of music, just like not everyone in the cutlure that produced results from 'tinkering' actually tinkered.   People a few generations ago in my own history played music all of the time, in fact one of my great aunts played in one of the Bluegrass bands (Monroe), and her replacement when she got pregnant later on played the Beverly Hillbillies theme for the TV show. (Bluegrass has European links and probably other places also.)

 

There are variants in each group of people, but to dismiss the beahvior biases of a singular culture as NON cultural does show bias.

 

Each group has had substantial influence on society.

 

 

 

 

[AudioDoctor]

15 minutes ago, John Dyson said:

I somewhat disagree...   There has been a very strong 'tinkering' culture in certain groups of people.   It is a big part of my life, for example.  Through the 1850s through approx 2000, there used to be lots more of 'me' than nowadays as most people are playing games on their Iphones and talking on Facebook/etc.   There HAS been a cultural shift.

IMO, it is *very* wrong to automatically dismiss creations and realtively more pronounced behavior of a single culture as being 'not cultural'.   Not everyone of a single culture created different forms of music, just like not everyone in the cutlure that produced results from 'tinkering' actually tinkered.   People a few generations ago in my own history played music all of the time, in fact one of my great aunts played in one of the Bluegrass bands (Monroe), and her replacement when she got pregnant later on played the Beverly Hillbillies theme for the TV show. (Bluegrass has European links and probably other places also.)

 

There are variants in each group of people, but to dismiss the beahvior biases of a singular culture as NON cultural does show bias.

 

Each group has had substantial influence on society.

 

 

 

 

 

But it's humanity wide, not concentrated to one "race" which is a word I hate because we're all human.

[John Dyson]

2 minutes ago, AudioDoctor said:

 

But it's humanity wide, not concentrated to one "race" which is a word I hate because we're all human.

I didn't use the term 'race'.  However, using any implication that one race or society 'appropriates' an aspect of one group or another -- that is just a useless attitude.  Otherwise, we can start degenerating as I implied above.   I was trying to use absurdity to show how ABSOLUTELY absurd that arguments about 'appropriating' culture really is.   NOTHING is being taken, and whoever comes up with good ideas, and they are used -- those creative people (e.g. Bell, Dolby, etc) should feel good about their creations being used.   This is also similar to those involved in creating genres of music.   MOST creations are not from any one people or person.   Edison was well known for TRULY appropriating the works of his engineers, with their names not even being on his patents.  Of course, calling that 'appropriation' might not be operative, because Edisons behavior might have been a standard practice from that timeframe.

 

Dismissing creativity or attributing theft against a singular group (or creativity to a singular group), but forgetting others -- that just doesn't make any sense.

It is all one pool of culture.

 

For example, I think that it is cool that Japan adapted some aspects of American or European culture, but that is NOT appropriation.  Same as with music genres.

 

 

[AudioDoctor]

2 minutes ago, John Dyson said:

I was trying to use absurdity to show how ABSOLUTELY absurd that arguments about 'appropriating' culture really is. 

 

The only thing absurd here are the things you're calling cultural...

[Rt66indierock]

Probably a good to remind people of two concepts "not even wrong" and there are only well reasoned opinions and poorly reasoned opinions. 

[John Dyson]

7 minutes ago, AudioDoctor said:

 

The only thing absurd here are the things you're calling cultural...

Only because some cultural aspects of a certain group of people are dismissed.  (e.g. Ham radio was a cultural aspect -- with a strong bias towards a single group of people.)  There were even magazines, meetings.   It was very common for someones uncle, father, grandfather to be a Ham operator.   IN a way, that can be considered a part of the same kind of group that created the TV technology, diesel engine, cars in general, etc.  There is too much compensatory bias going on -- and it is ONLY destructive.   In the hills where half of my family came from, playing music was super-common and also part of the culture.   People forget that so very often -- the forgetfulness is all about bias.

 

 

[John Dyson]

48 minutes ago, John Dyson said:

Only because some cultural aspects of a certain group of people are dismissed.  (e.g. Ham radio was a cultural aspect -- with a strong bias towards a single group of people.)  There were even magazines, meetings.   It was very common for someones uncle, father, grandfather to be a Ham operator.   IN a way, that can be considered a part of the same kind of group that created the TV technology, diesel engine, cars in general, etc.  There is too much compensatory bias going on -- and it is ONLY destructive.   In the hills where half of my family came from, playing music was super-common and also part of the culture.   People forget that so very often -- the forgetfulness is all about bias.

 

 

I need to make it clear -- I am trying to show the TOTAL absurdity of the concept of cultural appropriation.   Frankly, I think that it is silly to use any of the above seriously, just as it is to imply that any kind of music was appropriated from another.  I forgot to follow up with the statement as I did in previous comments.   A lot of invention came from tinkering, did someone 'appropriate' from the 'tinkerer', or much worse, from the group that the 'tinkerer' belonged to? (

There IS a matter of IP ownership, but that is a more narrow situation.

 

 

 

[AnotherSpin]

I suppose all white rock musicians should kneel at the beginning, the end, and a couple of times during their concerts and repent. Hope that helps everyone.

[AudioDoctor]

5 hours ago, John Dyson said:

Only because some cultural aspects of a certain group of people are dismissed.  (e.g. Ham radio was a cultural aspect -- with a strong bias towards a single group of people.)  There were even magazines, meetings.   It was very common for someones uncle, father, grandfather to be a Ham operator.   IN a way, that can be considered a part of the same kind of group that created the TV technology, diesel engine, cars in general, etc.  There is too much compensatory bias going on -- and it is ONLY destructive.   In the hills where half of my family came from, playing music was super-common and also part of the culture.   People forget that so very often -- the forgetfulness is all about bias.

 

 

 

Do you have a dictionary handy?

[AudioDoctor]

6 hours ago, John Dyson said:

Only because some cultural aspects of a certain group of people are dismissed.  (e.g. Ham radio was a cultural aspect -- with a strong bias towards a single group of people.)  There were even magazines, meetings.   It was very common for someones uncle, father, grandfather to be a Ham operator.   IN a way, that can be considered a part of the same kind of group that created the TV technology, diesel engine, cars in general, etc.  There is too much compensatory bias going on -- and it is ONLY destructive.   In the hills where half of my family came from, playing music was super-common and also part of the culture.   People forget that so very often -- the forgetfulness is all about bias.

 

 

 

Lets see if I can make this more clear...

Lutefisk is cultural. HAM radio is not.

Pow-Wows are cultural, Diesel engines are not.

Music can be, TV technology is not.

 

Traditional styles of dress for a certain people or geographical area, cultural.

 

I am not sure what point you're trying to prove. We all need to pay attention to the sad and pitiful plight of HAM radio operators?

[Allan F]

4 hours ago, John Dyson said:

(e.g. Ham radio was a cultural aspect -- with a strong bias towards a single group of people.)  There were even magazines, meetings.   It was very common for someones uncle, father, grandfather to be a Ham operator.

 

How is this even remotely relevant to the topic under discussion? Ham radio operators may have interests in common, but there is absolutely no underlying cultural aspect to those shared interests.

[John Dyson]

1 hour ago, AudioDoctor said:

 

Lets see if I can make this more clear...

Lutefisk is cultural. HAM radio is not.

Pow-Wows are cultural, Diesel engines are not.

Music can be, TV technology is not.

 

Traditional styles of dress for a certain people or geographical area, cultural.

 

I am not sure what point you're trying to prove. We all need to pay attention to the sad and pitiful plight of HAM radio operators?

There is a difference between 'cultural' and being or growing from a culture.   YOU should look at a dictionary.

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

Back on the topic of music, and do it cordially, or the thread gets nuked.