This is about a form of record keeping that is traditionally African against a European set of laws.
I'm sure this was first and foremost on James Newton's mind. Perhaps he was confused because of his African decendants... 200 years ago. Come the fuck on.
You come the fuck on. Oh wait, sorry, becuase YOU know what is first and foremost on Newton's mind. Do tell?
Common sense would dictate that he's probably familiar with whatever he's been around. And unless he's an African immigrant...
I refuse to accept common sense as evidence. You gots to do better.
I would, but I'm too busy trying to fashion my legal perspectives around that of my 1500s Scottish ancestors.
I always thought this would have sounded the same, and probably cost them a lot less...
HAH!!
Doesn't it, though?
And in terms of what that sound represents in our song, we used it as a drone in the background. It has nothing to do with the central theme of our song. We could replace the flute drone with some other droning sound, or even remove it altogether and it would make no difference to our overall composition. [/b]Apart from the first time that the flute sound plays, it is so low in the mix that it is difficult to even hear it.
We could replace the flute drone with some other droning sound, or even remove it altogether and it would make no difference to our overall composition. [/b]
Well, they should do that. And pay him royalties up to that point. It would still be a "musical masterpiece."(I mean, it would still suck.)
I???m not the one on here with subscription to the Final Call. So why do I have play the dirty Farrakhan role? Does someone have to get dragged behind truck for fuckers to acknowledge the hand up peckerwoods have in the USA? Not only financially, but also in the very design of laws*. Why can???t you see how these issues have implicit reference to the fact that Newton plays noisy jazz and is black? I really hope I???m wrong, but shit stinks to me.
He should be paid (through his record company) for use of the recording AND for the use of his composition.
Period.
*That this country does not recognize any part of his composition as distinct or worthy of protection is disgraceful.
Frank, the problem is that you are attributing Newton's problems with his record label to the Beastie Boys. He signed a contract with his label - not under pressure, but of his own accord - allowing them exploitation rights.
This is not about peckerwoods and bamas. This is not about noisy jazz and hip-hop. It's about a guy that did not retain ownership of his recorded works. That is the only way he can get paid off this. This country absolutely recognizes his composition as distinct - what it does not recognize is a small part of that composition which cannot - BY ITSELF - be claimed as intellectual property. You are so wrong on this I don't even know why I'm arguing. Drum breaks, usually, are seen by the courts as not musically distinctive enough to enforce as sample clearance issues. This is the same thing. Musicians, composers, improvisers, etc have been appropriating, replaying, and sampling music for a very long time and the only thing that protects one's ability to do this is that the law sees whole compositions, not tiny portions, as property of the composer. Newton himself has surely appropriated riffs and note combinations, chords, etc. How would you like it if one musician was able to copyright chords, and anyone who played them had to pay that guy? This isn't Black and white Frank, it's musical expression. Again, we are not talking about the SOUND SAMPLE, which has been paid for. Whether or not the Beastie Boys pay Newton or his label is according to the deal NEWTON signed. Willingly. He recorded this in 1982, when knowledge of contracts was a lot better than say, 1972. We are talking about the notes themselves. Thankfully, nobody can copyright individual notes.
You sound like an old timer who spends all his money on booze and then shakes his fist at the bank for not giving him more.
We could replace the flute drone with some other droning sound, or even remove it altogether and it would make no difference to our overall composition. [/b]
Well, they should do that. And pay him royalties up to that point. It would still be a "musical masterpiece."(I mean, it would still suck.)
I???m not the one on here with subscription to the Final Call. So why do I have play the dirty Farrakhan role? Does someone have to get dragged behind truck for fuckers to acknowledge the hand up peckerwoods have in the USA? Not only financially, but also in the very design of laws*. Why can???t you see how these issues have implicit reference to the fact that Newton plays noisy jazz and is black? I really hope I???m wrong, but shit stinks to me.
He should be paid (through his record company) for use of the recording AND for the use of his composition.
Period.
Why are you continuing to racially polarize the situation? Are you fucking comparing this to james byrd now? Nonsense. (what, the reparations reference didn't really resonate? wonder why....)
Look at the situation. It's unusual, yet you continue to view it very simply. And only reply to little snippets of posts that you can easily dismiss.
*That this country does not recognize any part of his composition as distinct or worthy of protection is disgraceful.
Jeeezus.... they DO recognize that. If the beastie boys sampled another section of the song that is more complex, he would have a case. If it was compositionally characteristic, there wouldn't be much argument. But Newton is saying those three NOTES... not that performance, but the NOTES themselves, are unique enough to warrant his ridiculous claims.
Plus Newton is rallying against the protections for musicians as much as (if not more than) he professes to be for musicians. If he won this case, any musician could basically sue any other musician. (never mind anybody who sampled anything in the last 20 years)
Why can???t you see how these issues have implicit reference to the fact that Newton plays noisy jazz and is black?
"Noisy jazz"? You sound like a PBS documentary on the 1930s. I hate to break it to you but jazz has been completely assimilated into mainstream American tastes. "Noisy jazz" shows are loaded with middle age yuppie types. That argument may have worked in 1932 and may work for hip hop today, but not jazz today. Sorry.
You sound like an old timer who spends all his money on booze and then shakes his fist at the bank for not giving him more.
I love this line.
From what I've read of Francis he's beyond liberal... the scary kind of PC liberal who "sees" inequities that aren't even there. And this description is coming from a guy who probably defines the term "liberal". (Of course, maybe not the definition of PC)
As many musicians (both black and white) have gotten paid from all angles of sampling, I find it hard to believe that as this late date this case has much (if any) racial angle to it, especially given the monetary details already known.
jeez..think about the other dudes who have been ripped off way more than Newton, because of the definition of composition..Bo Diddley for example, you know how many fucking people bit the "Bo Diddley" drum pattern over the last 40 years? that drum pattern is just as much as a signature composition as Mr. Newton's IMO, but alas drum patterns dont count...good thing, or I suppose there would only be a smidgen of hip hop recordings..wait maybe that is a bad thing...
also, chord progressions dont count either, if they did the Kingsmen would be the richest muhfuggers out there with their 1-4-5 pattern....oh, Richard Berry, I mean...you see it is never ending...
You sound like an old timer who spends all his money on booze and then shakes his fist at the bank for not giving him more.
I love this line.
me too
From what I've read of Francis he's beyond liberal... the scary kind of PC liberal who "sees" inequities that aren't even there.
You obviously read very little, if any.
Scary kind of PC? Fuck you. You don't know me. You don't know my politics. I'll school you the fuck up and down this board or anyware anytime you wanna talk politics. Fucker bitch, I spent a lot of time in DC. Bring it!
Yeah, I think this Newton shit is lame. Yeah, I think the Beasties are lame. Yeah, I think America hates Black people. Yeah, I'm stretching shit.
I never thought I'd be to the right of someone on an issue of race on Soulstrut but Frank - I can't roll with most of what you're trying to put across here.
1) What if this wasn't the Beastie Boys vs. James Newton but Diamond D vs. James Newton? I'm open to the argument that Afro-diasporic traditions in music do not necessarily fit well into a Eurocentric notion of intellectual property. The fact that drum breaks are not copyright-able, to me, is reflective of that double standard where melodies are presumed to be compositions but Stubblefield coming up with the "Funky Drummer" break is not. However, whether or not the Beasties are white is immaterial to the legal AND social issues at hand. You, of course, are free to feel otherwise but I really don't see the relationship at all. (Likewise, if Newton wasn't Black (and last I checked, there are quite a few flutists who weren't) that would also throw your argument out of the window.)
2) As someone who takes the notion of inequality seriously, it is of upmost importance to be attuned into CONTEXT. I'm sorry man but invoking Thurgood Marshall on a debate like this is way out of context and if anything, diminishes his legacy. James Newton - who I've had the honor of meeting in the past, and someone for whom I hold a great deal of respect - is not arguing for desegregation, the end of Jim Crow, the right to vote, an anti-lynching bill, or open and equal access to health care, employment, housing or the freedom NOT to get beat to death by police. A "win" for Newton doesn't benefit African Americans materially. It would have benefitted HIM. To elevate his legal battle beyond that is as hyperbolic as when Clarence Thomas said the Democrats were out to "lynch" him during his confirmation hearings. Those kind of loose comparisons does violence to the history and memory of what racial discrimination actually manifests.
It's not that I don't take the issue of cultural exploitation seriously - believe me, I do - but this isn't the case to offer up as the example. Newton lost because his SPECIFIC claim was weak and its weakness - as JP and others have pointed out - has very little to do with larger systemic inequality but rather, a more esoteric debate over what defines a "composition." Sure, cultural bias enters into that but Newton's case can't be conflated beyond what it is.
TLC ripped off kim mitchell's composition lets go for a soda in "waterfalls"
TLC ripped off Hanson's melody MMMBop in the the vox to unpretty
greenday's geek stink breath ripped off foo fighter's alone and easy target, or vice versa.
Bush's "glycerine" is a slowed down rip off of the riff used in Greenday's "when i come around....oh wait, every phucking pop/rock band uses the same 1 IV V progression...
nah, im just joking, i am not to technical, so maybe a lot of this went over my head, but what's the main issue here? you gotta get credit for the source sample AND compositional structure? oh is that why i read "this song contain's an interpolation of ______' "______"? in lots of rap liner notes? would beasties have been saved if they had used that disclaimer? man there are SO MANY modern "R&B" acts that rip off blatant melody lines of old, but i suspect thats some studio producer's tribute to their own tastes. anyhow, copyrighting composition is a very tricky issue. nonetheless i like reading this post, its very insightful.
the one thing about rap vs any other genre id say, its its easier to rip off in other forms of music, in rap, a sample can be dug up and compared, vs re-recording something and playing it off as your own in other genres.
in terms of composition rip offs, man, the ghosts of the blues should be paid hardcore if anything.
oh and from that disgusting genre known as "two step", did the original guy that thought of that beat, hook up with the funky drummer guy and buy their own island with all the royalities they got?
The Beasties clear the sound recording through the label, Newton decides to sue anyway, claimg some incidental sounds that were used in "Pass the Mic" are a composition (if he deserves 50% ownership of "Pass the Mic", then the Bad Brains deserve %2000).
pkny, I'm curious about your mention of Bad Brains. Do you mean their influence over the Beastie Boys in general or is there something Brainsesque about "Pass The Mic" that I don't know? Educate, please.
The Beasties clear the sound recording through the label, Newton decides to sue anyway, claimg some incidental sounds that were used in "Pass the Mic" are a composition (if he deserves 50% ownership of "Pass the Mic", then the Bad Brains deserve %2000).
pkny, I'm curious about your mention of Bad Brains. Do you mean their influence over the Beastie Boys in general or is there something Brainsesque about "Pass The Mic" that I don't know? Educate, please.
~Bam
The heavy guitar riff throughout "Pass the Mic" was lifted from "Big Takeover" off of the ROIR cassette. The riff is only played once on the original, in between the "morse code" intro, and their first go-round on the main riff. I think that sample is much more crucial to "Pass the Mic" than the Newton lift.
I never thought I'd be to the right of someone on an issue of race on Soulstrut but Frank - I can't roll with most of what you're trying to put across here.
1) What if this wasn't the Beastie Boys vs. James Newton but Diamond D vs. James Newton? I'm open to the argument that Afro-diasporic traditions in music do not necessarily fit well into a Eurocentric notion of intellectual property. The fact that drum breaks are not copyright-able, to me, is reflective of that double standard where melodies are presumed to be compositions but Stubblefield coming up with the "Funky Drummer" break is not. However, whether or not the Beasties are white is immaterial to the legal AND social issues at hand. You, of course, are free to feel otherwise but I really don't see the relationship at all. (Likewise, if Newton wasn't Black (and last I checked, there are quite a few flutists who weren't) that would also throw your argument out of the window.)
2) As someone who takes the notion of inequality seriously, it is of upmost importance to be attuned into CONTEXT. I'm sorry man but invoking Thurgood Marshall on a debate like this is way out of context and if anything, diminishes his legacy. James Newton - who I've had the honor of meeting in the past, and someone for whom I hold a great deal of respect - is not arguing for desegregation, the end of Jim Crow, the right to vote, an anti-lynching bill, or open and equal access to health care, employment, housing or the freedom NOT to get beat to death by police. A "win" for Newton doesn't benefit African Americans materially. It would have benefitted HIM. To elevate his legal battle beyond that is as hyperbolic as when Clarence Thomas said the Democrats were out to "lynch" him during his confirmation hearings. Those kind of loose comparisons does violence to the history and memory of what racial discrimination actually manifests.
It's not that I don't take the issue of cultural exploitation seriously - believe me, I do - but this isn't the case to offer up as the example. Newton lost because his SPECIFIC claim was weak and its weakness - as JP and others have pointed out - has very little to do with larger systemic inequality but rather, a more esoteric debate over what defines a "composition." Sure, cultural bias enters into that but Newton's case can't be conflated beyond what it is.
I wanted to put this baby to bed, but I noticed how your two points contradict one another. If ???Afro-diasporic traditions in music do not necessarily fit well into a Eurocentric notion of intellectual property??? then why isn???t setting a new precedent allowing opportunities to share in wealth and recognition afforded by composers of music in accepted [read: white] format similar to advancements championed by pioneers of civil rights in America? (i.e., Thurgood Marshall) That you pompous fuckers try to take ownership of a legacy is sad. One can be inspired in different ways by the same story.
So while Diamond and colleagues are not overtly racist, their actions are embedded within a cultural system that implicitly endorses a slave holding mentality. Therefore, I don???t think the merits Newton???s claim were explicitly hindered by his ancestry. But I do posit that the methods of his creative expression, its documentation and its proprietary status are foolishly undervalued in American society--specifically expressed through our justice system in this case. Being that America has a notorious history in its relations with black people, one can safely be suspicious. I???m more than suspicious and feel fine about that.
PS--"Cracker" was a slang term used by 19th Century Georgian slaves to refer to the slavemasters. If this were in fact, true, then the term would come directly from the cracking of the slavemaster's whip.(Dictionary of Afro-American Slang,)
1) I'm just saying - there's a time and place to invoke Thurgood. You make your choices, I make mine. It's a side debate but I thought that shit was a bit over the top but hey, I'd rather see Thurgood remembered than forgotten so I guess I'm not so mad at it.
2) The underlying issues here - in THIS CASE - have relatively little to do with ethnic or racial norms around intellectual property. It's one thing if you want to argue that the entire notion of intellectual property is fucked up. That's a different debate though. If you're talking about Newton's case, you can't conflate the two. I don't think newton's argument can really be made along the lines of a cultural tradition since other musicians - who do not play music influenced by Afro-diasporic tradition would be EQUALLY affected by the ruling here.
If this was a case between Bjorn Lindh and the Beastie Boys, I seriously doubt you would make an issue of it even if the merits of the case were identical. Newton's ethnicity brings very little to bear in this whole situation even if, as I noted and you repeated, the general issues of the case (i.e. around intellectual property) is reflective of cultural bias. That's not a contradiction - it'd be naive for me to say that cultural bias is wholly absent. But that doesn't mean, by extension, that cultural bias is wholly present either.
I never thought I'd be to the right of someone on an issue of race on Soulstrut but Frank - I can't roll with most of what you're trying to put across here.
1) What if this wasn't the Beastie Boys vs. James Newton but Diamond D vs. James Newton? I'm open to the argument that Afro-diasporic traditions in music do not necessarily fit well into a Eurocentric notion of intellectual property. The fact that drum breaks are not copyright-able, to me, is reflective of that double standard where melodies are presumed to be compositions but Stubblefield coming up with the "Funky Drummer" break is not. However, whether or not the Beasties are white is immaterial to the legal AND social issues at hand. You, of course, are free to feel otherwise but I really don't see the relationship at all. (Likewise, if Newton wasn't Black (and last I checked, there are quite a few flutists who weren't) that would also throw your argument out of the window.)
2) As someone who takes the notion of inequality seriously, it is of upmost importance to be attuned into CONTEXT. I'm sorry man but invoking Thurgood Marshall on a debate like this is way out of context and if anything, diminishes his legacy. James Newton - who I've had the honor of meeting in the past, and someone for whom I hold a great deal of respect - is not arguing for desegregation, the end of Jim Crow, the right to vote, an anti-lynching bill, or open and equal access to health care, employment, housing or the freedom NOT to get beat to death by police. A "win" for Newton doesn't benefit African Americans materially. It would have benefitted HIM. To elevate his legal battle beyond that is as hyperbolic as when Clarence Thomas said the Democrats were out to "lynch" him during his confirmation hearings. Those kind of loose comparisons does violence to the history and memory of what racial discrimination actually manifests.
It's not that I don't take the issue of cultural exploitation seriously - believe me, I do - but this isn't the case to offer up as the example. Newton lost because his SPECIFIC claim was weak and its weakness - as JP and others have pointed out - has very little to do with larger systemic inequality but rather, a more esoteric debate over what defines a "composition." Sure, cultural bias enters into that but Newton's case can't be conflated beyond what it is.
I wanted to put this baby to bed, but I noticed how your two points contradict one another. If ???Afro-diasporic traditions in music do not necessarily fit well into a Eurocentric notion of intellectual property??? then why isn???t setting a new precedent allowing opportunities to share in wealth and recognition afforded by composers of music in accepted [read: white] format similar to advancements championed by pioneers of civil rights in America? (i.e., Thurgood Marshall) That you pompous fuckers try to take ownership of a legacy is sad. One can be inspired in different ways by the same story.
So while Diamond and colleagues are not overtly racist, their actions are embedded within a cultural system that implicitly endorses a slave holding mentality. Therefore, I don???t think the merits Newton???s claim were explicitly hindered by his ancestry. But I do posit that the methods of his creative expression, its documentation and its proprietary status are foolishly undervalued in American society--specifically expressed through our justice system in this case. Being that America has a notorious history in its relations with black people, one can safely be suspicious. I???m more than suspicious and feel fine about that.
PS--"Cracker" was a slang term used by 19th Century Georgian slaves to refer to the slavemasters. If this were in fact, true, then the term would come directly from the cracking of the slavemaster's whip.(Dictionary of Afro-American Slang,)
This is all talk, Frank--none of it is really applicable to the facts of this case.
Hey Fatback, I might sell records to Ad Rock in the next few days or weeks, do you want me to tell him to suck your dick? Circular breathing was invented by Aborigines playing didjeridus, should they sue Rahsaan Roland Kirk?
Just a thought, not being a tool, and I'm hella late to this thread. Peace T.N.
We should overhaul the entire judicial system to one that aligns itself with orality. Indeed, let the oral traditions of immediacy and spontaneity govern our judicial decisions. Print culture be damned! Oral tradition forever! Oral tradition forever! Oral tradition forever!
You need to quit being so outrageous.
If your so-called African-devised culture of improvisation -- a notion completely unrecognized in the field of music -- is what reigns supreme, then why would this man be so upset over sharing his music and, even more important, be so gungho over having his compositions committed to something resembling print -- that so-called European tradition that his blackness should avoid at all costs.
We should overhaul the entire judicial system to one that aligns itself with orality. Indeed, let the oral traditions of immediacy and spontaneity govern our judicial decisions. Print culture be damned! Oral tradition forever! Oral tradition forever! Oral tradition forever!
You need to quit being so outrageous.
If your so-called African-devised culture of improvisation -- a notion completely unrecognized in the field of music -- is what reigns supreme, then why would this man be so upset over sharing his music and, even more important, be so gungho over having his compositions committed to something resembling print -- that so-called European tradition that his blackness should avoid at all costs.
Edit: This is in response to Frank.
I've already responded to these comments in previous threads, but I don't expect you to lower yourself to read what I write. However, I'm very honored that you would stop in to share what is and what is not "recognized in the field of music." Because, you know, I have been wondering. Bitch.
Non, plaese to give Ad Rock my number for dick eating. 202-667-9260.
Please, I've been around music theorists for my entire life. I've had this very discussion multiple times and, inevitably, it leads to the same answer: You're wrong.
Comments
I would, but I'm too busy trying to fashion my legal perspectives around that of my 1500s Scottish ancestors.
Doesn't it, though?
And in terms of what that sound represents in our song, we used it as a drone in the background. It has nothing to do with the central theme of our song. We could replace the flute drone with some other droning sound, or even remove it altogether and it would make no difference to our overall composition. [/b]Apart from the first time that the flute sound plays, it is so low in the mix that it is difficult to even hear it.
I live to have faux say shit like this to me.
Well, they should do that. And pay him royalties up to that point. It would still be a "musical masterpiece."(I mean, it would still suck.)
I???m not the one on here with subscription to the Final Call. So why do I have play the dirty Farrakhan role? Does someone have to get dragged behind truck for fuckers to acknowledge the hand up peckerwoods have in the USA? Not only financially, but also in the very design of laws*. Why can???t you see how these issues have implicit reference to the fact that Newton plays noisy jazz and is black? I really hope I???m wrong, but shit stinks to me.
He should be paid (through his record company) for use of the recording AND for the use of his composition.
Period.
*That this country does not recognize any part of his composition as distinct or worthy of protection is disgraceful.
This is not about peckerwoods and bamas. This is not about noisy jazz and hip-hop. It's about a guy that did not retain ownership of his recorded works. That is the only way he can get paid off this. This country absolutely recognizes his composition as distinct - what it does not recognize is a small part of that composition which cannot - BY ITSELF - be claimed as intellectual property. You are so wrong on this I don't even know why I'm arguing. Drum breaks, usually, are seen by the courts as not musically distinctive enough to enforce as sample clearance issues. This is the same thing. Musicians, composers, improvisers, etc have been appropriating, replaying, and sampling music for a very long time and the only thing that protects one's ability to do this is that the law sees whole compositions, not tiny portions, as property of the composer. Newton himself has surely appropriated riffs and note combinations, chords, etc. How would you like it if one musician was able to copyright chords, and anyone who played them had to pay that guy? This isn't Black and white Frank, it's musical expression. Again, we are not talking about the SOUND SAMPLE, which has been paid for. Whether or not the Beastie Boys pay Newton or his label is according to the deal NEWTON signed. Willingly. He recorded this in 1982, when knowledge of contracts was a lot better than say, 1972. We are talking about the notes themselves. Thankfully, nobody can copyright individual notes.
You sound like an old timer who spends all his money on booze and then shakes his fist at the bank for not giving him more.
Why are you continuing to racially polarize the situation? Are you fucking comparing this to james byrd now? Nonsense. (what, the reparations reference didn't really resonate? wonder why....)
Look at the situation. It's unusual, yet you continue to view it very simply. And only reply to little snippets of posts that you can easily dismiss.
Jeeezus.... they DO recognize that. If the beastie boys sampled another section of the song that is more complex, he would have a case. If it was compositionally characteristic, there wouldn't be much argument. But Newton is saying those three NOTES... not that performance, but the NOTES themselves, are unique enough to warrant his ridiculous claims.
Plus Newton is rallying against the protections for musicians as much as (if not more than) he professes to be for musicians. If he won this case, any musician could basically sue any other musician. (never mind anybody who sampled anything in the last 20 years)
"Noisy jazz"? You sound like a PBS documentary on the 1930s. I hate to break it to you but jazz has been completely assimilated into mainstream American tastes. "Noisy jazz" shows are loaded with middle age yuppie types. That argument may have worked in 1932 and may work for hip hop today, but not jazz today. Sorry.
I love this line.
From what I've read of Francis he's beyond liberal... the scary kind of PC liberal who "sees" inequities that aren't even there. And this description is coming from a guy who probably defines the term "liberal". (Of course, maybe not the definition of PC)
As many musicians (both black and white) have gotten paid from all angles of sampling, I find it hard to believe that as this late date this case has much (if any) racial angle to it, especially given the monetary details already known.
also, chord progressions dont count either, if they did the Kingsmen would be the richest muhfuggers out there with their 1-4-5 pattern....oh, Richard Berry, I mean...you see it is never ending...
me too
You obviously read very little, if any.
Scary kind of PC? Fuck you. You don't know me. You don't know my politics. I'll school you the fuck up and down this board or anyware anytime you wanna talk politics. Fucker bitch, I spent a lot of time in DC. Bring it!
Yeah, I think this Newton shit is lame. Yeah, I think the Beasties are lame. Yeah, I think America hates Black people. Yeah, I'm stretching shit.
But I'm fucking mad. Godamn Toto Chardonnay mad!
Now go eat a fucking dicKKK, cracker.
this is the good Frank
Keep on being black as you wanna be mang.
Nope. That's not the guy. That's more like the "Old" Good Frank, looking back on a lifetime of spilled wine and wrecked records...
Damn straight.
1) What if this wasn't the Beastie Boys vs. James Newton but Diamond D vs. James Newton? I'm open to the argument that Afro-diasporic traditions in music do not necessarily fit well into a Eurocentric notion of intellectual property. The fact that drum breaks are not copyright-able, to me, is reflective of that double standard where melodies are presumed to be compositions but Stubblefield coming up with the "Funky Drummer" break is not. However, whether or not the Beasties are white is immaterial to the legal AND social issues at hand. You, of course, are free to feel otherwise but I really don't see the relationship at all. (Likewise, if Newton wasn't Black (and last I checked, there are quite a few flutists who weren't) that would also throw your argument out of the window.)
2) As someone who takes the notion of inequality seriously, it is of upmost importance to be attuned into CONTEXT. I'm sorry man but invoking Thurgood Marshall on a debate like this is way out of context and if anything, diminishes his legacy. James Newton - who I've had the honor of meeting in the past, and someone for whom I hold a great deal of respect - is not arguing for desegregation, the end of Jim Crow, the right to vote, an anti-lynching bill, or open and equal access to health care, employment, housing or the freedom NOT to get beat to death by police. A "win" for Newton doesn't benefit African Americans materially. It would have benefitted HIM. To elevate his legal battle beyond that is as hyperbolic as when Clarence Thomas said the Democrats were out to "lynch" him during his confirmation hearings. Those kind of loose comparisons does violence to the history and memory of what racial discrimination actually manifests.
It's not that I don't take the issue of cultural exploitation seriously - believe me, I do - but this isn't the case to offer up as the example. Newton lost because his SPECIFIC claim was weak and its weakness - as JP and others have pointed out - has very little to do with larger systemic inequality but rather, a more esoteric debate over what defines a "composition." Sure, cultural bias enters into that but Newton's case can't be conflated beyond what it is.
That's not stretching it.
headz wanna know thee deal!
It doesn't diminish Marshall's legacy, but it sure diminishes the credibility of the person abusing his name and image.
How fucking simple do I have to get to get the last word, bitches?
Faux, you better step off my credit...you bean pie eatin' caucazoid.
in terms of melody,
TLC ripped off kim mitchell's composition lets go for a soda in "waterfalls"
TLC ripped off Hanson's melody MMMBop in the the vox to unpretty
greenday's geek stink breath ripped off foo fighter's alone and easy target, or vice versa.
Bush's "glycerine" is a slowed down rip off of the riff used in Greenday's "when i come around....oh wait, every phucking pop/rock band uses the same 1 IV V progression...
nah, im just joking, i am not to technical, so maybe a lot of this went over my head, but what's the main issue here? you gotta get credit for the source sample AND compositional structure? oh is that why i read "this song contain's an interpolation of ______' "______"? in lots of rap liner notes? would beasties have been saved if they had used that disclaimer? man there are SO MANY modern "R&B" acts that rip off blatant melody lines of old, but i suspect thats some studio producer's tribute to their own tastes. anyhow, copyrighting composition is a very tricky issue. nonetheless i like reading this post, its very insightful.
the one thing about rap vs any other genre id say, its its easier to rip off in other forms of music, in rap, a sample can be dug up and compared, vs re-recording something and playing it off as your own in other genres.
in terms of composition rip offs, man, the ghosts of the blues should be paid hardcore if anything.
oh and from that disgusting genre known as "two step", did the original guy that thought of that beat, hook up with the funky drummer guy and buy their own island with all the royalities they got?
im just being stupid, carry on.
pkny,
I'm curious about your mention of Bad Brains. Do you mean their influence over the Beastie Boys in general or is there something Brainsesque about "Pass The Mic" that I don't know? Educate, please.
~Bam
The heavy guitar riff throughout "Pass the Mic" was lifted from "Big Takeover" off of the ROIR cassette. The riff is only played once on the original, in between the "morse code" intro, and their first go-round on the main riff. I think that sample is much more crucial to "Pass the Mic" than the Newton lift.
I wanted to put this baby to bed, but I noticed how your two points contradict one another. If ???Afro-diasporic traditions in music do not necessarily fit well into a Eurocentric notion of intellectual property??? then why isn???t setting a new precedent allowing opportunities to share in wealth and recognition afforded by composers of music in accepted [read: white] format similar to advancements championed by pioneers of civil rights in America? (i.e., Thurgood Marshall) That you pompous fuckers try to take ownership of a legacy is sad. One can be inspired in different ways by the same story.
So while Diamond and colleagues are not overtly racist, their actions are embedded within a cultural system that implicitly endorses a slave holding mentality. Therefore, I don???t think the merits Newton???s claim were explicitly hindered by his ancestry. But I do posit that the methods of his creative expression, its documentation and its proprietary status are foolishly undervalued in American society--specifically expressed through our justice system in this case. Being that America has a notorious history in its relations with black people, one can safely be suspicious. I???m more than suspicious and feel fine about that.
PS--"Cracker" was a slang term used by 19th Century Georgian slaves to refer to the slavemasters. If this were in fact, true, then the term would come directly from the cracking of the slavemaster's whip.(Dictionary of Afro-American Slang,)
1) I'm just saying - there's a time and place to invoke Thurgood. You make your choices, I make mine. It's a side debate but I thought that shit was a bit over the top but hey, I'd rather see Thurgood remembered than forgotten so I guess I'm not so mad at it.
2) The underlying issues here - in THIS CASE - have relatively little to do with ethnic or racial norms around intellectual property. It's one thing if you want to argue that the entire notion of intellectual property is fucked up. That's a different debate though. If you're talking about Newton's case, you can't conflate the two. I don't think newton's argument can really be made along the lines of a cultural tradition since other musicians - who do not play music influenced by Afro-diasporic tradition would be EQUALLY affected by the ruling here.
If this was a case between Bjorn Lindh and the Beastie Boys, I seriously doubt you would make an issue of it even if the merits of the case were identical. Newton's ethnicity brings very little to bear in this whole situation even if, as I noted and you repeated, the general issues of the case (i.e. around intellectual property) is reflective of cultural bias. That's not a contradiction - it'd be naive for me to say that cultural bias is wholly absent. But that doesn't mean, by extension, that cultural bias is wholly present either.
This is all talk, Frank--none of it is really applicable to the facts of this case.
I might sell records to Ad Rock in the next few days or weeks, do you want me to tell him to suck your dick?
Circular breathing was invented by Aborigines playing didjeridus, should they sue Rahsaan Roland Kirk?
Just a thought, not being a tool, and I'm hella late to this thread.
Peace
T.N.
You need to quit being so outrageous.
If your so-called African-devised culture of improvisation -- a notion completely unrecognized in the field of music -- is what reigns supreme, then why would this man be so upset over sharing his music and, even more important, be so gungho over having his compositions committed to something resembling print -- that so-called European tradition that his blackness should avoid at all costs.
Edit: This is in response to Frank.
I've already responded to these comments in previous threads, but I don't expect you to lower yourself to read what I write. However, I'm very honored that you would stop in to share what is and what is not "recognized in the field of music." Because, you know, I have been wondering. Bitch.
Non, plaese to give Ad Rock my number for dick eating. 202-667-9260.