Dylan: What's Yours Is Mine, And What's Mine Is Mine, Too
from the privatizing-the-commons dept
We've pointed out many times before the absolute hypocrisy of those who constantly build on the works of others, but go ballistic should anyone seek to build on their works. Where it gets really ridiculous is when people insist that, if you don't like things like this, you should "create your own." Often they'll point to the works of famous musicians as examples of people who "made their own." For example, a year ago, we wrote about a music industry lawyer who insisted that folks like Bob Dylan would avoid the music industry altogether, if it weren't for the protections afforded under the old system. So, it's quite interesting to see this piece in the Irish Times that points out that Bob Dylan had a nasty habit of copying from everyone else, but threatening anyone who tried to build on his own works:This was very much the state of folk song when Dylan came on the scene. It occupied an ambivalent terrain between originality (and therefore private ownership) and collective tradition (and thus common possession). Dylan ruthlessly exploited this ambiguity. He treated everybody else's folk songs as a common storehouse he could raid at will. He didn't just filch songs from other people's repertoires; he stole their arrangements. (As late as 1992, he lifted Nic Jones's arrangement of Canadee-I-O, wholesale and without acknowledgment.) He did this on both sides of the Atlantic. The great Martin Carthy, who has also just turned 70, taught him Scarborough Fair, which Dylan then recycled as Girl from the North Country.While I have issues with the use of "stole" to describe Dylan's actions, this sort of story is pretty common. Artists who are often held up as being "original" have frequently copied from those who came before, quite freely. And that's a good thing. I'm wondering if those who run to our comments to declare "make your own!" will also complain about Dylan "profiting off the works of others," or if they'll be blinded by the (worthwhile) cultural establishment of Dylan, and come up with excuses for why his use of others' works was okay...
But he treated his own songs as private property: what's yours is mine and what's mine is my own. The assertion of his individualism involved in "going electric" was in part a way of defining Dylan entirely as an individual artist and therefore as the sole owner of his own songs.
We can say now that Dylan's ruthlessness was that of any genius and that his exploitation of these ambiguities was justified by what he produced from them. But it's hard to blame people for not seeing it quite that way at the time. Dylan was doing something significant in the history not just of modern culture but of modern capitalism. He was fencing in what had been common land, establishing property rights over a collective heritage. He wasn't alone in this and it was part of a much bigger process. But those who yelped in pain were not entirely contemptible.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Good artists borrow...
How can anyone realistically CR content when there is simply a limited range of possible notes and arrangement of those notes?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
More borrowing
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: More borrowing
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It is after all the principle reason that "stealing" is an utterly inappropriate and inaccurate term for copyright infringement as the infringement whether someone considers it to be evil or noble does not deny the use of the item infringed to anyone else and does not require anyone else to pay for the use of the infringed material either.
It's not so much all property is theft, but all public property fenced off and reopened only to those willing and able to pay for access to land that is theirs is fraud and fraud is a variation on theft.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
depriving?
In a time when modern rock and pop music has become merely a banal"product" and bereft of anything approaching art- (with some exceptions of course)I'm certainly grateful to dylan for exposing me/us to so much of the bedrock of American music as well as the genuine "folk" melodies from around the world that so much of the early folk/rock/blues was built on.
I'm just as grateful to him for bringing exposure to literature as well.
There is a discipline, called "literary allusion" used by writers since the beginning- inspired by, building on or referencing the work and ideas of others. This discipline is studied in Universities and countless books have been published by both academics and "laymen" identifying and chronicling this art form.
And now Dylan is being studied the same way.
Deservedly so.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In his words
I guess he followed his own advice.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
All musicians steal
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
However, playing a song someone else has written does not make you the writer or creator of the song, just a musician playing someone else's work. The difference is both subtle and enormous. Writing a new blues song means by definition that you will borrow a basic structure (cord progressions, example, but it doesn't stop you from creating a totally new work.
All wood frame houses are build from the same 2x4 pieces of wood. That doesn't stop them from being unique in their construction. If you only look at the 2x4 wood, you can think they are the same. It is a misdirection to look only at the wood, however, because you would miss the actual product.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Just? :(
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Somewhere, YoYo Ma is crying.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
very good.
irony(?) worthy of Bob.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Actually, I find that most of these people are blinded by the amount of money that these artists make, rather than cultural establishment, i.e. "look how great Lady Gaga is! She made 20 million last year alone! Are you gonna argue with that?"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
When you steal from the works of many people it’s called: Research!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Would the same individual expression somehow emerge if you only copied one song?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Or, as Tom Lehrer said...
In one word he told me secret of success in mathematics:
Plagiarize!
Plagiarize,
Let no one else's work evade your eyes,
Remember why the good Lord made your eyes,
So don't shade your eyes,
But plagiarize, plagiarize, plagiarize--
Only be sure always to call it please "research".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I don't follow what you're trying to say here. Are you claiming that it wasn't OK for Dylan to use other people's work without permission or attribution or paying a license? That would be kind of funny to hear, because you know what would have made sure those original artists would have inherited some of the value of their work? Copyright protection. I doubt that's what you mean to imply.
Or are you saying that it's totally cool that Dylan ripped the works of so many others without paying due respect? Because in the copyright-minimal world proposed at this site and other like-minded places, what you would end up with is world full of "Dylans" ripping the work of actual creators. These "Dylans" could reach the size of record labels.
We already have proof that this would happen. See: the career of Bob Dylan. Everything he did was legal, and still is actually, since in almost every case he added his own original individual expression (the lyrics). But the world contemplated at this site wouldn't even require that.
So like I said, I'm not sure what you're proposing here, beyond trying to point out the inferior intellect of people who might somehow, in this day and age, be unaware that Dylan appropriated his entire career from the folk music tradition (which it should be pointed out, was and still is totally legal. Folk chord progressions are free for anyone to use and put their words to, even Dylan's. See Springstein, Lennon, DiFranco, all the modern "freak folk" bands). I'd say that if anything, a post like this highlights the need to protect the interests of creators from cultural aggregators like Bob Dylan. That's not necessarily what I think, but I'm just trying to figure out the point of trying to make fun of those who disagree with the TD party line.
Maybe I'm missing the point. I wasn't aware that anybody considered Dylan original in a musical sense (that would precisely rub against the whole point of the folk music tradition). It was his status as a poet that seems to matter to people. In that sense, he was fairly original.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
That's complete bunk. "Folk" is not a word with any legal significance. Copyright laws still apply based on the same factors that make them apply anywhere else. For example, "Happy Birthday" is commonly called a folk song, but it is still under copyright. Same thing with the "Kookaburra" fiasco in Australia.
Now, there are indeed certain chord progressions that have been in use for so long that they are public domain, but it has nothing to do with them being "folk" - they are subject to the exact same laws as any other music.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The thing is, Dylan didn't just rip off other people, he transformed and reinterpreted the music, added his own lyrics, etc. - and this adds value. This makes his offering unique and valuable to many people. And, by being inspired and building on others' music, Dylan was able to create a body of work far superior to that which he could have done as an "actual creator". (Taking this to its logical conclusion, would he have to invent his own instruments, musical notation and language to qualify as a real "original artist"?)
Like everyone else, he stood on the shoulders of all those who went before him, and his work was much better for it - this is progress. The point here is not to highlight a false dichotomy between "actual creators" and "cultural aggregators like Bob Dylan"; the point is that every creator is an aggregator, and that their creations - with their own unique transformations and additions - are much better for it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Really? I tried to be pretty explicit.
Are you claiming that it wasn't OK for Dylan to use other people's work without permission or attribution or paying a license? That would be kind of funny to hear, because you know what would have made sure those original artists would have inherited some of the value of their work? Copyright protection. I doubt that's what you mean to imply.
Yes, I think it's perfectly fine that Dylan built off the works of others, because that's how culture is made.
Or are you saying that it's totally cool that Dylan ripped the works of so many others without paying due respect? Because in the copyright-minimal world proposed at this site and other like-minded places, what you would end up with is world full of "Dylans" ripping the work of actual creators. These "Dylans" could reach the size of record labels.
You seem to be confusing "copyright" with "credit." The two are separate and you should avoid mixing them up.
Yes, I have no problem with people building on the works of others. I think that it's *the right thing to do* to give credit where it's due, but I don't think it should be required under the law.
The point of the article -- which you seem to have totally missed -- was the blatant hypocrisy of someone like Dylan copying others without allowing others to copy him. And, on top of that, the blatant hypocrisy of people who hold up Dylan as some great example of creating something "new" when he also built on the works of others -- something he now denies to future creators.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dylan, style or plagerism
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
lol
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Huh. And I always thought his drunken off-key rambling vocalizations was what defined him as an individual artist.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This Just Proves Why Intellectual Property Is So Important
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
razman the thief
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The House Of The Sinking Credibility
They call 'The Rising Sun'
And it's been the ruin of many a young poor boy
And God, I know, I'm one
~~~Bob Dylan (1962)...er, I mean Eric Burdon (1964)....umm Leadbelly (1948)... er 'Texas' Alexander (1928)....maybe....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dylan didn't nick Nic's arrangement of Canada-i-o
Fact is that Dylan couldn't play Nic's brilliant, very sophisticated, fingerpicking arrangement if he tried. He doesn't try, using a fairly standard Dylanesque strumming arrangement instead. Nic's version is in an open tuning, Dylan's is in standard tuning. The singing style is also different, with Nic mostly hanging behind the beat and Dylan singing with the beat. Both are memorable interpretations, and they are quite different.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]