Artists "use" each others work, business booms...

[Maxmars]

I just thought I would offer this up as a reminder that sometimes, we fail to recognize how artists create a vibe, or tune, which really isn't as "new" as we think.  It is especially easy to do this, the farther back you go in music history.

Apparently, intellectual property is a malleable concept, as long as theirs is the profit to make.



Isn't it interesting that lawyers are the 'go to' tools to remedy this practice of "interpolation" which under any other guise of IP protection would be theft.

[Maxmars]

It's funny, I just had a conversation about this phenomenon in our music culture.

While I expressed some perceptions about for some, simply 'taking' the creations of another, and massaging it up enough to conceal the source offers an exploitable pretense of it being their own 'creation.'  That in the modern music library there are thousands upon thousands of instances where this was so... and it was a "matter of fact, yawn, so what" proposition.

With digital sampling came the removal of a barrier to 'recast' a beat, a melody, even lyrics... and still get paid to do it as if it were one's own work.

But, my friend tells me, "Everyone knows this is what's being done."  "The industry accepts it, they tacitly encourage it."

I wondered if it was a generational thing... When I was growing into the music culture, as it were, we found "new" sounds, and "new" performances which stood out and were promoted as 'different' from all others...  my young friend grew into a world of sampling...

Perhaps this is a generational sensitivity.  And a bit of a disappointing realization that maybe there are no new 'artists.'   The only thing that changes is the imagery of their behavior... and certainly now, not always their creations.