{"id":1386,"date":"2020-07-22T20:29:38","date_gmt":"2020-07-22T19:29:38","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/oestrem.com\/thingstwice\/?p=1386"},"modified":"2020-07-27T20:38:10","modified_gmt":"2020-07-27T19:38:10","slug":"false-prophet-why-is-it-plagiarism-if-when-the-deal-goes-down-isnt","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/oestrem.com\/thingstwice\/2020\/07\/false-prophet-why-is-it-plagiarism-if-when-the-deal-goes-down-isnt\/","title":{"rendered":"“False Prophet” vs. “If Lovin’ is Believin'” \u2013 Greedy Plagiarism or Lovin’ Recycling?"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Or: To Live Outside The Law, You Must Be Honest<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Here we go again: Dylan has nicked a song from an old, forgotten musician, and the apologists flock around him in his defence. This time it’s False Prophet<\/em> from his recent album Rough and Rowdy Ways<\/em> that has been found to be remarkably similar to If Lovin’ Is Believin’<\/em>, an obscure B-side from a Sun Records single from 1954, recorded by Billy “The Kid” Emerson, who is perhaps vaguely remembered by a handful of early R&B nerds for some other single from the same year, but otherwise completely forgotten (although still alive, and now known as Reverend William Emerson).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Here’s what the defending army say (this<\/a> and this<\/a> article sum up the arguments quite nicely, the following is a condensed list):<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u2013 It’s the folk tradition!<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u2013 Thank god there were no copyright laws when Shakespeare was around! <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u2013 Dylan\u2019s changes to False Prophet<\/em> may be small but they are significant, so it\u2019s not really plagiarism.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u2013 Dylan is doing the original creators a favour. If he hadn’t stolen their songs, nobody would have listened to them anyway.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u2013 He may have borrowed a tune here and there, but it’s not done with any ill intent, so at least it isn’t plagiarism.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u2013 There are only so many notes out there; similarities are bound to appear.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u2013 Besides, who knows, maybe Dylan has settled this privately with the originator; then everything is handy dandy, right? Right!<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u2013 He may have nicked the arrangement, but arrangements can’t be copyrighted.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u2013 Copyright didn’t apply legally before 1989 if the copyright symbol wasn’t attached; maybe the original authors had forgotten the little \u00a9?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Wussies and Pussies<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

These allegations, that are more or less related to the contents of the songs and the intentions behind, are frequently accompanied with an “inverse moral indignation” on the part of those who feel hurt by criticism of Dylan:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u2013 The mean detractors are always looking for ways to put Dylan down.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Dylan himself has come out strongly with this argument, stating, when asked about the accusations of plagiarism: <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Oh, yeah, in folk and jazz, quotation is a rich and enriching tradition. That certainly is true. It’s true for everybody, but me. There are different rules for me.<\/p>

Wussies and pussies complain about that stuff.<\/p>From Mikal Gilmore’s Rolling Stone interview Bob Dylan Unle<\/a><\/strong>ashed<\/a><\/em> (2012)<\/cite><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

To which there is really only one thing to say: Boo hoo<\/em>, Bob! Yeah, you’re being so<\/em> unfairly treated. No go cry on someone else’s nanny’s shoulder.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

But for the rest: Do these arguments redeem him, and if so, and perhaps more importantly: of what<\/em>? What are the charges? What are the issues, what is at stake here? <\/p>\n\n\n\n

In this text, I would like to (a) briefly summarize the issues; (b) go through some of the evidence that is frequently cited, on either side, whenever Dylan’s alleged plagiarism is discussed; and (c) suggest two test questions that may help to decided whether and why (or why not) it matters that Dylan steals.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

I should mention that without this text<\/a><\/em> I probably wouldn’t have written the following; I hope I haven’t stolen too much from it. I don’t think so.)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Charges<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

The accusations mainly fall into two categories: one having to do with copyright and the legal issues surrounding it; the other more vaguely connected with questions of what is wrong and right, justifiable or damning. In both cases one could argue that matters are very clear, but also that they aren’t, and that whatever clarity a decision on those particular issues may bring, may not even matter. What’s important with False Prophet<\/em> can probably not be reduced to a legal or moral matter. This is after all human communication, art, stylized emotions we’re talking about here \u2013 emotions stylized in sound, at that: in the medium where language takes place, but without the added burden of conceptual thought.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Put simply: what Dylan is doing on False Prophet<\/em> may be important, but whether or not there is a paragraph in a law book somewhere that may send him to jail (or a commandment to send him to Hell) is of no importance for this question.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Copyright Law<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

In a way, copyright law is real simple: if you’ve produced something, it’s yours to sell, even if it is not a material thing. If you carve a flute out of a marble block, it’s yours; you can play on it as much as you want. What copyright adds is that if you come up with a great melody while playing, that tune is also<\/em> yours, and nobody can copy it and claim it as theirs. You have the “copy-right”.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

So far, it’s simple, but that’s also where “simple” ends. There are two major obstacles: if it’s not a physical thing but some intangible activity that is being copied, how is one to determine what that object is and where the limits are of what constitutes copying? And: what does it really amount to, this right of yours? Who is going to protect it, and under what circumstances? And against what?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Is it the principle of a hole through a piece of marble, the finger holes, the shape of the tailpiece, the particular sound it makes, the size, the colour that determines your flute? How identical must my flute be to yours before you can start complaining?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The comparison with the marble flute even highlights one of the serious problems with copyright protection: it really only applies to ideas<\/em> or realizations of ideas<\/em>, not to actual things. If I see your marble flute and copy it, it is not my flute that would be an infringement; only if I sell it, for example under circumstances where you had made a name for yourself as the Carver of Flutes and I somehow made money not primarily from carving my own flutes, but from your idea. The equivalent to a copyright infringement would be if I simply stole<\/em> your flute and sold it. Copyright law is about protecting ideas as if they were physical objects; and about protecting your right to make money from your formulation of an idea (but not your right to the idea itself).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Fundamentally, the idea of copyright presupposes a society where doing something that does not put food on the table or produces something tangible, such as a marble flute, is still valued, which is a quite advanced idea. But since it is more difficult to define an idea than a flute, copyright law is a mess. And since it’s mostly about the right to make a money from non-tangible activities, it also comes in touch with other areas of money-making, including corruption, exploitation, abuse, etc. Money doesn’t talk, it swears, you know.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It is worth noticing, for example, how the goal of copyright is defined in US law: <\/p>\n\n\n\n

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

Yes, it is We, The People who shall benefit from the protection (for Limited Times, mind you) of your right to your Writing, since it may turn out to be a “useful Art”.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

That’s fair and good; it is your choice not to till the earth but write poetry instead, and if you can make people pay for your bread, then all the power to you. But why is it then, for example, that copyright protection does not end when you die but usually lasts until you’ve been dead for 70 years? If you’re not there to eat the bread your poem has earned you, then what right is there to protect? Could it be that a law that was made to ensure you<\/em> the right to earn your living from something useless, because we<\/em> as a society feel that we benefit from that, is instead being used by parties with economic interests of their own, such as publishers, licencees, lawyers, etc., to secure a long-term, effortless income?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Yes. Copyright law aims to fulfill an aim that is good both for society and the individual – the right to improve society without necessarily putting a bucket of grain or a marble flute on the table to prove your worth – but since the object that is protected is both intangible and vague, and since the area in which it is protected is a commercial one, it is inevitable that there is a gray zone that can be exploited.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

So one question is: is this what Dylan is doing here, and has been doing since the start of the millennium? Many of the questions that I summarized initially fall into this category: either: copyright law doesn’t cover precisely what (whatever) it is that Dylan has done – be it a missing \u00a9, a shady deal behind the stage, or some other loophole having to do with definitions and intentions (is it plagiarism if your intentions are good? or if you do it openly?). In any case: since we can’t put a paragraph behind the accusation, what he is up to must be ok – how else can we judge it?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Common Decency<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

The other cluster of objections has to do with morals: it is wrong<\/em> of Dylan to do what he has done, whether or not it is legal<\/em>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

I happen to fall into this category myself: I think it’s a disgrace for one of the greatest creative minds of the past century to sink so low – and to consciously and consistently do so – that he can’t even bring himself to recognizing his debt to those who have gone before him. At the time he released Modern Times<\/em>, it might<\/em> have been written off as a faulx pas, <\/em>but not anymore: it’s a consistent modus operandi, and that’s not OK.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

But here’s my problem: I can’t really anchor my position securely anywhere. The law<\/em> is problematic since it mainly protects things that I’m skeptical of in the first place (such as the right of crooked corporations to claim ownership of expressions of ideas that should belong to mankind), and morals<\/em> are at least disputable and in any case hard to define.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

I therefore need firmer ground. Hence the following discussion of some items that have been brought up in the discussion \u2013 this one, and those that have taken place before \u2013 whenever Dylan’s thievery comes up.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Exhibit A: Blowin\u2019 in the Wind<\/em> is based\non No More Auction Block<\/em><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

One of the cases that curiously enough is always brought up in these situations, is the roots of Blowin’ in the Wind<\/em> in the old spiritual No More Auction Block<\/em> (again closely related to We Shall Overcome<\/em>). <\/p>\n\n\n\n

It\nis curious for several reasons: the influence has never been denied,\nit has always been described as a point of departure, an inspiration,\nbut hardly more than that, and the similarities really aren’t that\nsubstantial.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This ought to have made it an irrelevant argument, on either side, but since it is constantly referred to, let’s get the facts straight:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The similarities between the two songs are obvious but limited. The beginning is identical, when it comes to the melody, the harmonization (the album version differs slightly, but most live versions use the same harmonization as on No More Auction Block<\/em>), and the phrasing:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

And the end is equally similar: <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Nobody would dispute this, and nobody has. Pete Seeger pointed out the similarity and the origin, as reported in John Bauldies liner notes to Bootleg Series 1\u20133<\/em> where Dylan\u2019s recording of No More Auction Block<\/em> was released, and Dylan himself said so: <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Blowin’ in the Wind’ has always been a spiritual. I took it off a song called ‘No More Auction Block’ \u2013 that’s a spiritual and ‘Blowin’ in the Wind’ follows the same feeling.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

Should further evidence be needed in Dylan\u2019s defense, one might point out that the loan is limited to the first and last phrase and to the overall mood of a spiritual \u2013 \u201cthe same feeling\u201d; and that the rest of the song structure is very different: Auction Block <\/em>is a stylized call-and-response type of song, where one phrase is sung and then repeated in a slightly varied form:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

I      IV       I                    iv   V\nNo more auction block for me, no more, no more \nI     IV        I         vi  IV   V        I\nNo more auction block for me, many thousand gone.<\/pre>\n\n\n\n
 Blowin\u2019<\/em> is a ballad with a longer verse structure with a certain harmonic pattern, ending with a clear refrain:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
I        IV           V        I\nHow many roads must a man walk down\nI          IV         I\nBefore you call him a man?\n         I        IV          V          I\nYes, 'n' how many seas must a white dove sail\n  I        IV            V\nBefore she sleeps in the sand?\n         I        IV             V            I\nYes, 'n' how many times must the cannon balls fly\nI              IV      I\nBefore they're forever banned?\n       IV         V          I              IV\n   The answer, my friend, is blowin' in the wind,\n       IV        V              I\n   The answer is blowin' in the wind.<\/pre>\n\n\n\n
 So on a scale from complete independence <\/em>(0), through  influence<\/em> (1), similarity<\/em> (2), striking similarity<\/em> (3), identity<\/em> (4) to theft\/plagiarism<\/em> (5), and with a second axis going from open<\/em> to covert<\/em> and a third from innocent<\/em> to crooked<\/em>, this one obviously scores a clear 2 on the first axis and zeroes on the other axes: Blowing in the Wind<\/em> is influenced by and therefore shows some similarity with Auction Block<\/em>, but it is an open loan and morally white as a dove.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
And the lesson to be learned from Exhibit A is that even melodic identity may have to be evaluated in terms of the larger context (in this case: the song structure) before a verdict can be passed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Exhibit B: Dignity<\/em><\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Equally easily dealt with is the accusation that Dylan stole Dignity<\/em> from James Damiano\u2019s Steel Guitars<\/em>. I\u2019ve written exensively about it before<\/a> (including a blatantly plagiarized song of my own), so let\u2019s just say: the accusation might have been substantial had there been any similarity between the two songs, but there isn’t, so it isn’t. And there aren’t either any lessons to be learned, other than: don’t believe everything you read on the internet (and, Bob: next time James brings charges against you: call me!)<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Exhibit C: Canadee-I-O<\/em> and Arthur McBride<\/em><\/h2>\n\n\n\n
This one is more tricky, since it introduces the other aspect that in some form or another plays a role in the discussion about Dylan the plagiarist: the moral<\/em> issue. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Here\u2019s the story (which by the way hasn\u2019t figured in any of the more recent discussions, as far as I have noticed, but it was a hot issue once, and it might show up again): <\/p>\n\n\n\n
On the acoustic revival album Good As I Been To You <\/em>(1992), Dylan released the song Canadee-I-O<\/em>.  The song had recently been recorded by English folksinger Nic Jones, <\/em>which is also probably where Dylan had learned the song in the first place. Now, Jones had just been in a crippling and career-ending car crash, and when Dylan\u2019s version came out some people claimed that he had stolen Jones\u2019s arrangement without giving credit \u2013 the star had taken a poor, bedridden man\u2019s well-deserved money.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Sad as Jones’s story may be, even a cursory comparison reveals that the two versions have little or nothing in common. Jones\u2019 arrangement is a highly sophisticated finger-picking exercise in open tuning, with bends and advanced harmonies; Dylan\u2019s an energetic and straightforward flat-picking. (See this<\/a> for a more thorough analysis).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
A related case is ArthurMcBride <\/em>on the same album: Dylan had quite obviously learned the song from Paul Brady, the way he also learned Lakes of Pontchartrain<\/a><\/em>, at about the same time. Brady recalls their meeting in a hilarious interview: how Dylan contacted him and asked him: \u201cHey, this song of yours, Lakes of Pontchartrain<\/em>, can you teach me how to play it?\u201d: <\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n