arcadesonfire

Maybe instead of medical law, I should be looking into musical intellectual property. Hmmmmm

Didn’t Radiohead split the copyright of “Creep” because it had the same I III IV iv progression as a Hollies tune? Radiohead arpeggiated and sang a different melody and did a ton of other novel stuff, but they still split the copyright.... and then recently sued Lana Del Rey for using the same progression with a very similar vocal melody. Anywho, the matter of borrowing/sharing chord progressions across the centuries is a big reason why I get frustrated with lawsuits about particular rhythms. Music works largely by inspiring and sharing.

Well then the whole system is totally blursted up! We need a Bernie Sanders to ride in there on a wrecking ball.... Obviously I have little understanding of all this stuff. Maybe that’s a reason I was eager to take a record deal years ago but my band mate rejected it.

Elton’s got the recording.

Right. That’s the downfall of my 21st-century, rock-o-centric line of thinking. Though... I imagine those songwriters are all writing lyrics with their melodies, so they shouldn’t be threatened by the “infinite open source melodies” in the OP, nor should they be threatened by the stupid rhythm/melody lawsuits like those that get big headlines.

Hahahaha! That’s great.... I watched the first ten seasons’ episodes constantly, over and over and over again from age 11 to ~25, so they’re branded on my brain. But I’m guessing the Simpsons weren’t the first to make a “best of times” joke like that. Maybe EHX was even inspired by that line! And look at the bright side, now you’ve got me reading that review.

That’s why I had said “and/or to the author connected to a specific recording” just above. I suppose that if there are songwriters who are writing but aren’t connected to a specific recording of their work, then my proposition is troublesome—though no less troublesome than what the folks in the OP are trying. And like I said, my suggestion really wouldn’t work for COMPOSERS of music that isn’t intended for a specific performer. I’m largely speaking out of my rear end here, but still just trying to express how I feel like for most pop/rock/country/techno/etc from the past 60ish years, the recordings offer a better signature of the person holding the copyright than do the notes spelled out on a staff.

Although my thought here wouldn't apply to composed-but-not-recorded music, here's what I've been thinking about the pop music lawsuit business forever: Ever since we began recording music that's for sale, every recorded production imbued the music with more than just a collection of notes and rhythms. Each recording has a specific sound to it. For rock music, pop, hip hop, etc. etc., I think the "intellectual property" should relate to the recording. If a copyright pertained to a recording (and/or to the author connected to a specific recording) then these algorithmic* melodies would be meaningless. Connecting copyright to specific recordings instead of writing would cut down on any revenue made from going to bust people who are profiting off performing your music, but 1) if you're famous, people aren't going to pay to see a cover band and be just as happy as if they had seen you perform the music, and 2) is anybody really going around and policing covers anyway? *One could also add to legislation that no music arrived at by automation can be copyrighted.... Though I guess that would open up a can of worms too for those setting their auto-arpeggiators to random.

(there isn't a string forum, so i thought i'd ask here) I'm trying to help a bandmate pick out an electric cello. Does anyone here have any thoughts or advice? It would be great to keep it under $2000, but on the other hand, she will be selling the excellent cello she's had for 15 years (but which would cost too much to repair), so she doesn't want to just replace it with a knockoff. The only electric cellos under $2000 right now are the Yamaha SVC50 and the very suspicious $200 logs-with-strings on ebay. Are there any cellists here with experience with the SVC50? Or can anyone suggest other options we ought to be looking at?

This isn't a debate in case you haven't worked it out. If you like indie your opinion is not valid hence I do not recognise you as human, therefore you cannot debate this topic, I have already won any 'debate'. Indie is not a reference to independant labels, rather the monotonous, terrible attempts at music also known as hipster, you will know it and hate it when you hear it, if you don't do the world a favor and hang yourself. Arcadesonfire - you officially forfeited your membership to the human club. Yay! Finally, I'm alternative! I'm the alternative to a human race whose members murder one another and steal from one another, each of whom clings to his or her own ways and culture in violent opposition to others. Thank you for validating me. But honestly, you're either just joking now, pushing the envelope for kicks, or you're purposefully illustrating how people dehumanize people of another taste or culture in order that they don't have to consider their arguments, right? Anyway, what kind of music are you into?

So did American settlers in the West, my friend. There still are laws on the books from the past supporting the murdering of natives in a few states out there (of course ignored for the better today, like the "6 or more Indians together is considered a raiding party and it is legal to shoot them."). Sorry for hijacking, I just get ticked when everyone points at Europe for the "command and conquer" attitude when it really occurs everywhere in history. Remember Atilla the Hun? Oh, and look up "Gnadenhutten" on Wikipedia. There's something you don't hear about in history books. Alright, I'm done. Oh i'm quite aware that invading of other people's land has gone on throughout history and continues today by people all over the world... by "Europeans," i meant people of European decent, which includes the settlers who pushed west, and that's got to be one of the most dramatic examples of invasion in history... while colonialism is to a great extent over in African and Asia, people of European decent still control North America and Australia... though, I don't know much about Asian or African history, so there may be larger examples there that didn't involve Europeans that aren't coming to my mind... ok, back to the music debate...

Third, why do people get so serious about this {censored}? My theory is people need something to identify with, and if it isn't religion, and it isn't family, and it isn't nationality, it's gonna' be Nikes, iPods, and Autobots. Well, I need to head to class. I agree. People need to identify with something, and that's why i think it's very important that people understand that just because person A else doesn't identify with whatever person B identifies with doesn't mean that person A should condescend person B. With music, it's not such a big deal, but when it comes to religion, morals, economics, government etc. people are far too quick to try to eliminate what they don't identify with when instead they should first try to understand why so many other people do identify with it. I read that last line as "We all need to go to class" because a large part of liberal arts education (at least the one i had) is teaching folks how to peacefully and constructively deal with differences between people and groups.

Yes, absolutely. The whole music debate always boils down to subjectivity. Word. That's progress! I've enjoyed following this thread, and it seems like many of us are on the same wavelength. I disagree with some of what was said about Radiohead up above and I'd like to propose the idea that even innovation is subjective... many 20th century musicians innovated by inventing new non-12-tone scales, but musical cultures around the world have had non-12-tone scales throughout their existence. However, bringing a sound to people who aren't used to hearing it and using that sound to evoke or illustrate emotions that are familiar to that new audience, i think that can be innovative. So Kid A used a bunch of sounds that had already been done, but they put those sounds under Thom Yorke's lyrics and voice and introduced those sounds to a new audience; i think that can be pretty bold. I love Radiohead's lyrics, and as a 14-year-old Ok Computer blew my mind and endeared me to them forever. So thanks to my positionality, whenever i see them, i get chills... NPR listeners just voted In Rainbows the best record of 2007, and i think those listeners are probably similar to me in demographics... hmmm... i've tried starting a new paragraph a few times, but i think i've lost my train of thought... and i have been at work all day, i should be working... but it's a slow day, and this is a fun thread.

Spectral Julian- I agree that the bands you listed are sort of dumbed down versions of other bands, with the exception of modest mouse (considering that johnny marr is now in the band). Do you actually consider these to be hipster bands? When i think of hipster bands i think of xiu xiu, animal collective, aids wolf, melt bannana, shit robot, etc. I dont consider those bands to be hipster at all, because everyone listens to them. + ! I agree. I think we all might have different ideas of hipster bands, so i was asking before what people consider to be "hipster" music. Can you imagine being a die hard Metallica fan in 1988 and someone coming up to you and saying metal sucks because their idea of the world of metal is defined by Motley Crue?

I personally think Sufjan Stevens is lyrically wonderful but musically dull... In my opinion, the main problem with most musical audiences out there, be they the hipsters or the yuppier scene, is that they aren't there to witness an artistic event. Music isn't an art and a passion to them, it's an excuse for a night out with the girlfriend or a night spent dropping E and dancing. The hipsters are the ones who know who Ian Curtis is yet Peter Hook will be an unknown entity to them. Hipsters aren't innovators. They're socialites first and artists second...yet if you were to go to the opera, you'd have that feeling of being privilege to a real artistic occasion. Certainly Sufjan's lyrics are an enormous strength of his... apparently he spent 6 months in libraries researching Illinois before writing all those songs; but i really dig his music too. It's eclectic; it's a collage, like the White album. He borrows from genres of numerous classes. His most obvious art music inspiration on the states albums is Philip Glass's minimalism, but Sufjan morphs it into an enormous textural fanfare while the rhythms and harmonies remain minimalistic and repetitive (to my ears). On his Christmas albums, he's even got some bitonal stuff going on in a really beautiful way. You make some good points about how people see a night on the town with music, especially your last point about the opera... however, whenever i go to the Blue Note in lower manhattan, i've seen plenty of yuppies and older socialite types drinking up. I suppose they might be true jazz fans, but as hard as i try, i can't help but be suspicious that many folks there are there because jazz is 'classy' music. That's certainly not how the musicians on stage see it. So if an audience isn't so much into the music, does that make the music worse? i thought john scofield was still pretty damn good. Same goes for the folks on stage at a hipster club... if some people in the audience see the music on stage as background music, that doesn't mean that's how the musicians want it. They're very likely pouring their souls into it. Furthermore, some of history's greatest music was made for the express purpose of pleasing an audience. Recall that the most remembered and most influential baroque and classical musicians all had to work to please patrons. Most of the operas we'll go see today, expecting an artistic experiences, were written for patrons. Does that mean that Bach and Mozart weren't able to innovate enormously and be incredibly expressive and artistic? of course not. I think i said i might be trying to break into the hipster crowd mainly because the artists influencing the music i'm doing at the moment are hipsterish groups, so i feel like that audience is where i'll most like find patronage, people with similar taste as me, but shucks, i don't see what i'm doing as background music for people to drink to. I see it as a way to innovate harmonically and to express all my philosophies (like that business about not hating people). People can take it however they like.

I on the other hand, was judging their character. What can I say, that's my personality type. As a musician, I don't see anything that wrong with it. If you post here, music is obviously one of the most important things in your life. I think it's fair to say that someone's musical tastes are more important here than elsewhere. It's just like people who play sports: you often see the whole football team hanging out together. Why? Because they share a common interest. They don't necessarily hate non-football players on principle, but they know they are more likely to have likes and dislikes in common with their teammates. That's just how I feel about my music: I know there are cool people who listen to every genre, but I find more in common and therefore favor people who listen to my style of music. It's easier to connect with people who share my tastes, thus, they get favorable treatment. Is it right? I don't know, I guess I don't have a problem with it. Is it logical? Absolutely. That makes perfect logical sense, and i feel the same way you do. I had taken offense to the idea that it's ok to hate whoever you want for whatever reason you want, and i was taking that very seriously. But certainly it's fine to relate to people with similar interests more than to others... and not everyone on this forum has to have the same feelings about musical genres and critics and such. I like this forum because there are so many different tastes and types... sometimes i just feel that it would be better to listen to someone else's music and attempt to understand what they like about it rather than putting it down because it doesn't accomplish what your music does.

But has it changed for the better? It's his fucking opinion as to whether or not he likes that style of music and if he hates it that strongly and uses it to judge other people's character, that's his right. How do you know music isn't the most important thing in his life, to the point where he could honestly say he isn't friends with people who don't share his musical tastes? He can hate whoever he wants for whatever reasons he wants, and I think hating pretentious assholes who listen to music he dislikes is a great reason. Hmmm... i strongly disagree with the thought that it's ok to hate whoever you want for whatever reason you want... i suppose that's mainly because my favorite bit in the bible when i was young was Matthew 5:21... 21"You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, 'Do not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.' 22But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brotherwill be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to his brother, 'Raca,' is answerable to the Sanhedrin. But anyone who says, 'You fool!' will be in danger of the fire of hell... Even though i've done an awful lot of study and prayer and reformed my beliefs from what was taught to me in my ultra conservative lutheran elementary school, i still think that hate in general is bad and it ought to be avoided. I suppose there shouldn't be a law against it, and i know i'm taking what you said a lot more seriously than what you meant, but still, the idea that one should dislike someone else or dislike a group of people because of their musical taste, that's absurd! Europeans invaded continents without feeling guilty because they couldn't relate to the culture of the people of the land... how awful is it to refuse to empathize with someone just because some aspect of their culture is different from your own.

Okay, fuck you, and fuck people like you. It's music. .. I think i'm on Pbone's side on this one... but first, i'm curious what everyone thinks of when they think of "hipster" music. I think i'm trying to break into that scene with my new band (we're using my songs, www.myspace.com/morejessenewkirk, and some of my co-writer's songs, www.myspace.com/blakeluleymusic). Is that all the abhorred "hipster music" everyone is talking about? Which bands are you talking about? Peter Bjorn and John? LCD Soundsystem? Y'all best not be putting down Sujfan Stevens. Anyway, it's true that this type of music doesn't have much aggression to it nor does it have mind-blowing guitar playing, but let us all remember that there are just as many folks out there who think that virtuosic prog rock is meaningless psuedo-epic drivel, and those of us who do find meaning in such rock music don't like it when others put it down. Sooo, i don't have any fashion sense, i've been in new york for a year and half and i don't have a social circle, so i'm not a scenester nor a hipster, but when i do go to concerts by new bands in Williamsburg, i hear some incredibly innovative music. Sometimes it can be avant garde rock or jazz by a bunch of Oberlin graduates playing symphonic instruments, or it can be more traditional rock. It's not always wonderful, but for the most part, it's people exploiting different aspects of music in really creative ways. Some exploit texture, others exploit lyrics, others exploit harmony, others exploit comedy even. For those focused on music though, they're usually doing things that haven't been heard before and things that you can't hear on the radio. A lot of times there are experiments that might not work, but at least they're trying. They just aren't experimenting much with seeing how many more notes per second they can play on the guitar. If you head over to Greenwich village in Manhattan, you'll hear tons singer songwriters playing simple chords and more traditional stuff. They're playing for a yuppier crowd, and the hipsters, for the most part, won't touch it. I prefer the hipster scene to that one. (Note: i do not think New York is the center of the music world, but there are an awful lot of musicians who, like me, moved here knowing they'd find other musicians here too. I just don't want anyone putting me down for assuming that New York is everything; a heck of a lot of the hipster music inspiring the Brooklyn musicians came from Canada... Sufjan came from Detroit! just like Ted Nugent!)

I don't think i agree that music criticism is obsolete. True, you can listen to whatever you want and you don't need people you don't know making suggestions to you. However, huge record sales are no longer going to help great artists make their music last a long time (as i think huge record sales did for the Beatles, making their music last long enough that music critics and scholars could write enough about them that now they'll last for many generations). I suppose even at the time of release, Jimi Hendrix didn't have number 1 records all the time, but he was on TV and he did play Woodstock, but i digress... Anyway, all art is, obviously, subjective, so people's opinions will vary widely. Unlike music, making a movie for a national audience takes tons of money, tons of production, and a hell of a lot of organization. I wish it also required tons of skill and intelligence on the part of the director, but that's not always the case. So, since there are so fewer films coming out, they're bound to be more, umm, centralized around a relatively defined criteria for good and bad qualities. So, even if people disagree with film critics, the film critics job seems to have a bit more objectivity to it. With sooooo many musicians publishing music these days though, the criteria for good and bad are rapidly losing objectivity; HOWEVER, there has been, from my study of music history and theory, a driving force behind western music since the renaissance. I believe it would best be termed "controlled innovation." As Mozart expanded on Bach, and Beethoven expanded on Mozart, and Wagner expanded on Beethoven, and Mahler expanded on Wagner, and etc. etc., the canon of western music shows that innovation that was received well and liked by audiences continued to be a driving force even after the kings and queens stopped controlling music. As popular music took over in the 20th century and the path of romantic music turned to art music which was relegated to intellectuals in universities, innovation still drove popular music. Many many people wanted a new sound; they wanted to be part of the new sound. From swing to motown to grunge, all of these movements represented something new that lasts for a few years before the next innovation comes along. I think the folks at Pitchfork are working on determining who has the next sound, and which sound reflects a social commentary on our current time and place. You don't have to listen to them or believe them; but why should anyone criticize music fans who like to judge music by innovation and poignancy? A bunch of people read Pitchfork, so why not let it be and just not read it yourself? Anyway, many critics did make the right choice back in 2005 calling "Illinois" the best record of the year, so i'd say that any one of them is absolutely unquestionably objective (at least when it comes to Sufjan).