Plagiarism - Fact or fiction?

Duke Leonal Felmet · 07-09-2011 04:30PM #1

In my opinion, all music is derivative. Meaning that all music composed is mostly based on music that the composer is influenced by, with a little original twist added by the composer. The music overall changes incrementally, with differences being indistinguishable over short time periods, but when viewed over decades, the differences are more noticeable (In that sense, it finds some common ground with the theory of evolution, but I digress).

This is an accepted 'truth' in many of the worlds music genres/scenes, such as 'folk' and 'world music', where musicians openly borrow someone else's riff/progression and add their own twist to create a new song. However, in Western pop music, there is a denial (among many) that this even occurs at all.

I believe this to be the product of music lawyers, keen to protect the interests of their employers, who seek to claim the 'originality' of their clients works and thus ensure a revenue stream for a fixed time period, such as patent lawyers do.

Unfortunately, this philosophy has fed itself into the conciousness of music fans (unbeknownst to them) who defend the work of music lawyers without realising, and claim that all music is original, and anyone who follows centuries of tradition by borrowing a riff here or there is labelled a 'plagiarist', no better than a thief.

I say shame on those who do so. In fact, I consider this a plague on western musical thought, treating music as an art, at least. But I know I will not find unanimous support with that belief.

Hopefully this will stimulate an interesting debate.

losthorizon · 07-09-2011 04:54PM

I agree and disagree. I mean the Rolling Stones are quite proud and clear about the influences and particular songs that shaped their music. They talk about it all the time.

But then again you have some bands who are just ripping off other artists.

07-09-2011 05:24PM

I think you'll really like this video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5SaFTm2bcac

20 minute video about a 6 second drum break

karaokeman · 07-09-2011 05:37PM

Sometimes but not always, compare these two. Oasis with Liam (the one who always pretends to be John Lennon) on lead vocals and his hero on the other.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R5mFKeL67Dk

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cAWEyX_XqnI

Duke Leonal Felmet · 07-09-2011 05:55PM

karaokeman wrote: »

Sometimes but not always, compare these two. Oasis with Liam (the one who always pretends to be John Lennon) on lead vocals and his hero on the other.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R5mFKeL67Dk

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cAWEyX_XqnI

Not even similar, for example the beats between bars in different throughout. Are the chords the same? The key? The relative chord changes? You should have chosen Beady Eye's 'Roller' and Lennon's 'Instant Karma', if you really wanted to make a point.

But the practice of borrowing sounds is common and accepted in folk/world music, as I said above. But in western pop music it is frowned upon, again, for reasons I stated above. So you are only providing an example of what I am talking about.

It's just rejigging a sound. And I don't think the Gallagher brothers ever denied that, did they?

It's what music is. It is nothing without emulation. Stop listening to the lawyers.

Duke Leonal Felmet · 07-09-2011 05:58PM

Deleted User wrote: »

I think you'll really like this video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5SaFTm2bcac

20 minute video about a 6 second drum break

Exactly. But according to some, they are all plagiarists.

But they aren't. It's music. It's the equivalent of saying that Rembrandt ripped off Caravaggio.

07-09-2011 06:09PM

I absolutely agree with you btw.

As little as 40 years ago it was quite common for a band to do a cover version on their album. Nowadays, that just seems like a mawkish thing to do. I love when bands put their own little insignia on someone else's song. It evolves the song as someone might love a certain part of a song, and focus their version on that.

What is interesting about that video for me, was where do you draw a line between inspiration, sampling, and copying? should you pay royalties if you sample someone? Should Oasis pay royalties to The Beatles? (I can think of better examples, but the thread seems to be leaning with it) Should you pay royalties if you do a version of a well known song?

IIRC There's 3 types of royalties (I could be wrong on this) There's lyrics, music and arrangement (possibly performance, I'm not sure).

Duke Leonal Felmet · 07-09-2011 06:13PM

Deleted User wrote: »

I absolutely agree with you btw.

As little as 40 years ago it was quite common for a band to do a cover version on their album. Nowadays, that just seems like a mawkish thing to do. I love when bands put their own little insignia on someone else's song. It evolves the song as someone might love a certain part of a song, and focus their version on that.

What is interesting about that video for me, was where do you draw a line between inspiration, sampling, and copying? should you pay royalties if you sample someone? Should Oasis pay royalties to The Beatles? (I can think of better examples, but the thread seems to be leaning with it) Should you pay royalties if you do a version of a well known song?

IIRC There's 3 types of royalties (I could be wrong on this) There's lyrics, music and arrangement (possibly performance, I'm not sure).

Well, the law is the law. I'm not really getting into that. So if the lawyers in the tall skyscrapers say that money should be paid, then it should be paid. But I am referring to music as an art, which is what it is. And I think it cannot be music without people borrowing/emulating ideas.

For example, much of the early Beach Boys stuff was just Chuck Berry riffs with harmonies and surfer lyrics. But there was some great music there, so who cares?

Back to Oasis, they clearly took T.Rex's riff for 'get it on?' and applied to 'Cigarettes & Alcohol'. But instead of one great song, there are now two great songs, and they both have much different feels to them, so what on earth is the problem with that?

wonton · 07-09-2011 06:23PM

I agree and disagree. I mean the Rolling Stones are quite proud and clear about the influences and particular songs that shaped their music. They talk about it all the time.

But then again you have some bands who are just ripping off other artists.

losthorizon · 07-09-2011 06:29PM

wonton wrote: »

I agree and disagree. I mean the Rolling Stones are quite proud and clear about the influences and particular songs that shaped their music. They talk about it all the time.

But then again you have some bands who are just ripping off other artists.

Wheres my lawyer? :eek:

07-09-2011 06:38PM

I think we need to find someone to disagree with us

But it's an interesting thing, "plagiarism". I'm actually more used to it in the stand up comedy world than I am in music. I don't mind it in music, as you can truthfully say, "It's a homage" or at least pay tribute to the fact you "borrowed" a riff.
You can't do that in comedy. There is no homage in comedy. You either write original material yourself, develop someones idea* (but give them credit), Pay a gagman to write for you or flat out steal material.

Stealing material in the comedic world is such a no-no. There's no such thing as "covering a joke". You steal it. Look at Bill Hicks and Denis Leary for example. Leary not obviously stole his jokes, but actually stole Hicks stage act. How he thought he could get away with it is ludricous!

I think the similarity between the two has to come down to owning up to whether it was your original idea or not. Comedians will protest if someone says they stole a joke, but musicians will (generally) own up and claim homage.

*A few friends have developed ideas I've had for jokes, as I'm not a gag writer nor stand up

07-09-2011 06:40PM

wonton wrote: »

I agree and disagree. I mean the Rolling Stones are quite proud and clear about the influences and particular songs that shaped their music. They talk about it all the time.

But then again you have some bands who are just ripping off other artists.

But whats the difference?

Android 666 · 07-09-2011 08:47PM

Duke Leonal Felmet wrote: »

In my opinion, all music is derivative. Meaning that all music composed is mostly based on music that the composer is influenced by, with a little original twist added by the composer. The music overall changes incrementally, with differences being indistinguishable over short time periods, but when viewed over decades, the differences are more noticeable (In that sense, it finds some common ground with the theory of evolution, but I digress).

This is an accepted 'truth' in many of the worlds music genres/scenes, such as 'folk' and 'world music', where musicians openly borrow someone else's riff/progression and add their own twist to create a new song. However, in Western pop music, there is a denial (among many) that this even occurs at all.

I believe this to be the product of music lawyers, keen to protect the interests of their employers, who seek to claim the 'originality' of their clients works and thus ensure a revenue stream for a fixed time period, such as patent lawyers do.

Unfortunately, this philosophy has fed itself into the conciousness of music fans (unbeknownst to them) who defend the work of music lawyers without realising, and claim that all music is original, and anyone who follows centuries of tradition by borrowing a riff here or there is labelled a 'plagiarist', no better than a thief.

I say shame on those who do so. In fact, I consider this a plague on western musical thought, treating music as an art, at least. But I know I will not find unanimous support with that belief.

Hopefully this will stimulate an interesting debate.

Hmm, I think there is a difference between being influenced by something and just copying it. Musicians are essentially a combination of their influences and their capabilities and what they do with these is what is important. If they choose to assimilate their influences and try to create something fresh that's great, if they don't I can't see the point myself.

And yes, all music is derivative. There are only twelve notes in the western scale and a finite number of combinations. While the Beach Boys might have taking their inspiration from Chuck Berry riffs they combined it with the 3 and 4 part harmonies they learned to do as children creating something new at the time.

Most people will have no problem saying what their influences are and will be more than happy to talk about what inspires them but if people think they are just ripping someone off wholesale without trying to add something to it then most people are going to probably to just ignore them.

Plagarism is an interesting notion in music and while some of the bigger cases around it have been a bit daft I think the notion helps to encourage to try and do something unique with the music they create. That's definitely something that is positive about it.

I think the notion of copyright is in flux right now because of the internet and as Brian Eno said: “I think records were just a little bubble through time and those who made a living from them for a while were lucky.' Copyright law helped artists make money for a time from the music they created which I think was a good thing. And while record companies did abuse this system to make money it did also help fuel advances in technology for making and recording music and the creation of more ambitious works. The advancements in technology were ultimately the undoing of the record companies though and not too many people are going to mourn that.

Ultimately though, I do feel that copyright is valid. I think the artists should have the option as to whether they choose to give their music away for free or not, just like an artist or illustrator should have the right to have their art protected if they choose. Some may choose to give their work away freely and others may want to charge for the work which is starting to look more and more like a fools errand in the music world.

Ultimately any art can not be made in a bubble and I would say influence is not the same as theft. And please nobody use the Picasso quote...

wonton · 07-09-2011 10:33PM

Deleted User wrote: »

But whats the difference?

losthorizon help me out here:P

dasdog · 07-09-2011 10:52PM

It's the same with technology, food, film making, fashion and even art itself. The fact that people form bands and give themselves a name, usually comprising of a word or two, is a form of copying what others have done before. There is some awful rubbush from "outside the box" though and the odd gem that arises from copying others justifies the practice IMO though I still don't understand why the majority of commercial musicians are referred to as artists when they are clearly not.

07-09-2011 11:02PM

Well...

Musician create music, a form of art.

Hence musicians are artists.

sorry for the trite response, but to claim musicians are not artists is A) absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand and

obviously wrong.

Duke Leonal Felmet · 07-09-2011 11:02PM

I still haven't seen a convincing argument describing the line between inspiration and copying. This would seem to be the basis of the opposing arguments, so I am surprised it is missing.

Also, people have completely ignored the fact that folk/world music seems quite comfortable with people openly borrowing progressions, etc. Yet modern western pop music looks down upon such practices. I wonder why... $$$

Duke Leonal Felmet · 07-09-2011 11:04PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Well...

Musician create music, a form of art.

Hence musicians are artists.

sorry for the trite response, but to claim musicians are not artists is A) absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand and obviously wrong.

Agreed.

If art is human expression, how can a musician not be an artist?

Again, the definitions are completely lacking.

dasdog · 07-09-2011 11:07PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Well...

Musician create music, a form of art.

Hence musicians are artists.

sorry for the trite response, but to claim musicians are not artists is A) absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand and obviously wrong.

It's applicable to the vast majority of those who record or pick up an instrument. Are they creating or are they copying?

Android 666 · 07-09-2011 11:36PM

Duke Leonal Felmet wrote: »

I still haven't seen a convincing argument describing the line between inspiration and copying. This would seem to be the basis of the opposing arguments, so I am surprised it is missing.

Also, people have completely ignored the fact that folk/world music seems quite comfortable with people openly borrowing progressions, etc. Yet modern western pop music looks down upon such practices. I wonder why... $$$

Well that's probably because there is no real definitive line in the sand that you can draw where the people who are influenced are on one side and people who copy are on the other. Courts argue this point anytime a plagarism case pops up.

Folk music (sorry this might apply to world music I don't know, my knowledge in that area is lacking a bit) comes from a storytelling tradition where folk singers acted almost as newsreaders. So they would fit the ballad of whatever event they were singing about to a pre-existing melody, probably out of convenience. The airs would have been traditional with no known author so it wouldn't have been considered intellectual property theft. And since the notion of folk music is as much about the preservation of these storytelling techniques, this wouldn't be a practice that was frowned upon. Folk music would have had other hangups though - just ask Bob Dylan after he went electric.

And in terms of people copying other people's progression or music in the western world you seem to be ignoring the art of sampling there. People wouldn't really bat an eyelid at an 8 bar loop of another piece of music on a dance or hip hop track these days. It has become in the main part accepted practice. True, most artist that sample will have to pay royalties to the songwriters but they have established ownership of that song. Folk singers in the 19th century or beginning of the 20th century wouldn't have had that luxury.

Duke Leonal Felmet · 08-09-2011 12:52AM

Android 666 wrote: »

Well that's probably because there is no real definitive line in the sand that you can draw where the people who are influenced are on one side and people who copy are on the other. Courts argue this point anytime a plagarism case pops up.

Folk music (sorry this might apply to world music I don't know, my knowledge in that area is lacking a bit) comes from a storytelling tradition where folk singers acted almost as newsreaders. So they would fit the ballad of whatever event they were singing about to a pre-existing melody, probably out of convenience. The airs would have been traditional with no known author so it wouldn't have been considered intellectual property theft. And since the notion of folk music is as much about the preservation of these storytelling techniques, this wouldn't be a practice that was frowned upon. Folk music would have had other hangups though - just ask Bob Dylan after he went electric.

And in terms of people copying other people's progression or music in the western world you seem to be ignoring the art of sampling there. People wouldn't really bat an eyelid at an 8 bar loop of another piece of music on a dance or hip hop track these days. It has become in the main part accepted practice. True, most artist that sample will have to pay royalties to the songwriters but they have established ownership of that song. Folk singers in the 19th century or beginning of the 20th century wouldn't have had that luxury.

Again, this is just lawyer speak. Without emulation, there is no music.

wonton · 08-09-2011 02:01AM

Duke Leonal Felmet wrote: »

In my opinion, all music is derivative. Meaning that all music composed is mostly based on music that the composer is influenced by, with a little original twist added by the composer. The music overall changes incrementally, with differences being indistinguishable over short time periods, but when viewed over decades, the differences are more noticeable (In that sense, it finds some common ground with the theory of evolution, but I digress).

This is an accepted 'truth' in many of the worlds music genres/scenes, such as 'folk' and 'world music', where musicians openly borrow someone else's riff/progression and add their own twist to create a new song. However, in Western pop music, there is a denial (among many) that this even occurs at all.

I believe this to be the product of music lawyers, keen to protect the interests of their employers, who seek to claim the 'originality' of their clients works and thus ensure a revenue stream for a fixed time period, such as patent lawyers do.

Unfortunately, this philosophy has fed itself into the conciousness of music fans (unbeknownst to them) who defend the work of music lawyers without realising, and claim that all music is original, and anyone who follows centuries of tradition by borrowing a riff here or there is labelled a 'plagiarist', no better than a thief.

I say shame on those who do so. In fact, I consider this a plague on western musical thought, treating music as an art, at least. But I know I will not find unanimous support with that belief.

Hopefully this will stimulate an interesting debate.

I think money is probably one of the biggest issues here, supply and demand. The current music industry doesnt exactly need or fuel itself on originality therefore it is not really needed, similary, musicians in the baroque era were employed to write a constant flow of music which usually had a funtion as opposed to just artist pleasure so originality was once again here not the most important factor and it was also very common back then to copy music and imitate or composers work or use their melodys as the basis of your work.

Android 666 · 08-09-2011 06:56AM

Duke Leonal Felmet wrote: »

Again, this is just lawyer speak. Without emulation, there is no music.

How is my take on folk music and sampling simply lawyer talk? You've said you want a stimulating debate but you're not engaging in it. I have tried to counter your argument by telling you why I think copyright has had its benefits but you don't seem to want to answer beyond one or two trite sentences.

Emulation is how most people learn how to do any craft but unless you try to speak with your own voice I don't think it's of any benefit. This goes for musicians, artists, illustrators, etc.

How is celebrating the notion of originality a bad thing.

WakeUp · 08-09-2011 07:08AM

Plagiarism is a fact and I think it will always be that way although I think there are certain "levels" involved some more severe than others sometimes its unintentional. I accept everyone is influenced by some other artist to some extent and in some instances tampering with a chord progression or whatever is going to sound similar to some other tune. Many tunes are constructed of a certain group of basic chords and while not meaning to sound like something that has gone before the tune ends up sounding similiar to some degree.
Then you just have blatant rips pretty much carbon copies of a certain part/section of a tune which I totally dont agree with. Will give one example dont even need the name band/tune responsible for the "plagiarism" as its very well known though it might surprise a few people. This tune was released 3 years before it was sampled/plagiarised as is your want.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JhKUfiohxEY

Duke Leonal Felmet · 08-09-2011 02:26PM

Android 666 wrote: »

Duke Leonal Felmet wrote: »

Again, this is just lawyer speak. Without emulation, there is no music.

How is my take on folk music and sampling simply lawyer talk? You've said you want a stimulating debate but you're not engaging in it. I have tried to counter your argument by telling you why I think copyright has had its benefits but you don't seem to want to answer beyond one or two trite sentences.

Emulation is how most people learn how to do any craft but unless you try to speak with your own voice I don't think it's of any benefit. This goes for musicians, artists, illustrators, etc.

How is celebrating the notion of originality a bad thing.

Sorry, I haven't been at a pc, so my answers have been on a phone, hence their brevity.

I do not think originality is a bad thing, but I do think calling some music a 'rip-off' is simply an attempt to stifle what is at the heart of all composition i.e. taking someone elses idea and adding your own twist. Some leap further from their influences than others, but all musicians do it.

Oasis sounded a bit like The Beatles ( although not as much as the media told people to think)

Pet Sounds is a bit like Phil Spektor

Kid A sounded a bit like Aphex Twin

The list goes on, but who cares if they sound like the people they admire? If music did not behave this way, we would still be slapping our hands on coconuts and chanting.

Android 666 · 08-09-2011 02:54PM

Duke Leonal Felmet wrote: »

I do not think originality is a bad thing, but I do think calling some music a 'rip-off' is simply an attempt to stifle what is at the heart of all composition i.e. taking someone elses idea and adding your own twist. Some leap further from their influences than others, but all musicians do it.

Oasis sounded a bit like The Beatles ( although not as much as the media told people to think)

Pet Sounds is a bit like Phil Spektor

Kid A sounded a bit like Aphex Twin

The list goes on, but who cares if they sound like the people they admire? If music did not behave this way, we would still be slapping our hands on coconuts and chanting.

I think the key is 'sounded a bit like' - there's nothing wrong imo of your influences coming through in your work as long as they are not the overriding voice that your work has.

Marr's guitar work in the Smiths was influenced by the likes of the Byrds and you can see that in his picking style but that doesn't mean that he sounded like the Byrds. Other influences were in the mix and came together in a cohesive whole and created something fresh. The bands that followed in their wake and tried to copy his style however were terrible and have long been forgotten.

When bands copy the work of one artist too close they veer into pastiche and that's never a good thing. Take Pavement, a band that always spoke of their admiration of the Fall and you could make out the influence in amongst other things but on their album Crooked Rain, Crooked Rain they have a song called Hit the Plane Down which wears that influence a bit too much, even aping the vocal stylings of Mark E Smith and it just descends into pure pastiche, in doing so it ends up for me being one of the weakest songs on the album and feels quite cheap.

Duke Leonal Felmet · 08-09-2011 03:08PM

Android 666 wrote: »

I think the key is 'sounded a bit like' - there's nothing wrong imo of your influences coming through in your work as long as they are not the overriding voice that your work has.

Marr's guitar work in the Smiths was influenced by the likes of the Byrds and you can see that in his picking style but that doesn't mean that he sounded like the Byrds. Other influences were in the mix and came together in a cohesive whole and created something fresh. The bands that followed in their wake and tried to copy his style however were terrible and have long been forgotten.

When bands copy the work of one artist too close they veer into pastiche and that's never a good thing. Take Pavement, a band that always spoke of their admiration of the Fall and you could make out the influence in amongst other things but on their album Crooked Rain, Crooked Rain they have a song called Hit the Plane Down which wears that influence a bit too much, even aping the vocal stylings of Mark E Smith and it just descends into pure pastiche, in doing so it ends up for me being one of the weakest songs on the album and feels quite cheap.

Well, I guess time is the greatest judge on whether a song stepped too greatly on the toes of their ancestors. But many great songs blatantly took their structure from others, again I refer to the early Beach Boys stuff, for example:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wpP7tWXjcnc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eWNykOk2ckE

But people consider this one their greatest hits, yet it clearly is the same intro from Jonny B. Goode. To me, there is no problem here, because there are two good songs instead of one. But you might call it a rip-off?

Same here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SaeLKhRnkhQ

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P4HQbRuWJUU

Again, practically the same riff, but two great songs. Rip-off? So what?

Ash.J.Williams · 08-09-2011 03:12PM

Deleted User wrote: »

But whats the difference?

i would find it cynical for a band to take an unknown piece of music and copy it for commercial gain...

ahem...metallica sanatarium!

Ash.J.Williams · 08-09-2011 03:15PM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R439Y5Awe78

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rBZ1HTkGF4s

Duke Leonal Felmet · 08-09-2011 03:16PM

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

i would find it cynical for a band to take an unknown piece of music and copy it for commercial gain...

ahem...metallica sanatarium!

Well, I agree there. It is... unethical for a band to try to be underhanded like that. For all their failings, Oasis never denied their love of The Beatles.

Duke Leonal Felmet · 08-09-2011 03:18PM

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R439Y5Awe78

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rBZ1HTkGF4s

Christ, they are not even similar. People are really bad at this...

Plagiarism - Fact or fiction?

Comments