TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
Join free Log in
Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.
I think you are on to something!Oh, with stuff that's 500 years old, I imagine I am probably part of the extended family. Some of the stuff even then has identified official writers. But then did they borrow it from Blind Turnip Samuel down the local tavern uncredited?
Like Blackmore's Night? You better be careful, otherwise you might get sued by Richie!
I don't remember ever hearing "Rosa Parks" before yesterday, and that song came out at a time when I was going out to quite a few clubs (and was working as a DJ myself). "Hey Ya" I heard all over the place; "Rosa Parks", no. Might be a regional thing.
My kids were into "Rosa Parks"
Maybe. You are from Canada and I did live in Atlanta. But Aquemini is a couple albums before SB/LB. It would be around the time you might have been listening to Master P or Hot Boyz.
Being in Quebec would, I imagine, be very different from being in Atlanta in terms of music exposure - especially where southern hip-hop is concerned. It could also be that I just wasn't going to the kinds of clubs where that song was being played. What I am sure of is that if "Rosa Parks" was getting played around here it wasn't enough for it to register in my ear - and I generally don't need to hear a song more than twice for me to recognize it on subsequent plays. "Hey Ya" and "Miss Jackson", on the other hand, were impossible to avoid.
Like Blackmore's Night? You better be careful, otherwise you might get sued by Richie!
View attachment 4612643
My kids were into "Rosa Parks"
I know because it got played at all the dance parties here at the house during that time it was out.
I don’t think the court of opinions expects to match the eventual opinion of a court of law- that certainly isn’t Adam Neely’s take in this video or any of the other videos where he discusses music copyright. His point is that a growing number of professional music theorists and musicologists disagree with the way the courts are being used in the modern era for music copyright cases. It isn’t for him or music theorists/musicologists to make those judgements (we only have a flawed legal system for that), but they are allowed to have educated opinions and allowed to discuss them in public forums- you don’t have to watch his videos if you find his takes irritating.
Well put.
Word is that there are some Germans out there who are pretty miffed at Neely for his frequent borrowing from their culture.
My snarky comment was plainly intended to point him out as a hypocrite in regards to earning his income off someone else's culture. He has entire videos of him virtue signaling, I watch them too, and sometimes I turn them off. But they are full of historically accurate and interesting information. I usually agree with a most of his points, and regardless of my personal feelings about one part or another of his presentation I won't discount the whole thing.
I also think people sometimes read into things a particular way based on their own insecurities instead of the context of how they were expressed. When he mentioned them as a "white reggae band from Florida" he was doing so in the context of a discussion about the actual roots of the music tropes that both their song and Dua Lipa's song borrowed from, and saying that should they succeed in this lawsuit that this band would essentially be granted some ownership of things that they likely borrowed themselves from some previous black musicians. In the context of parts of his argument he could have just as easily labeled them as some "relatively small unknown band from Florida", but his deeper argument also included the specific origins of some of those tropes in black music (the legacy of the Charleston groove and the melody/ vocal groove in the OutKast song). If Artikal got a payout from Dua Lipa, its not like OutKast would then come around and sue Artikal for writing credits to their song because the Artikal song is virtually worthless on its own- so Artikal would basically be getting a payout and ownership for ideas previously recorded numerous times by black musicians (or that is the perspective being argued, whether you agree or disagree with the conclusion).
My snarky comment was plainly intended to point him out as a hypocrite in regards to earning his income off someone else's culture. He has entire videos of him virtue signaling, I watch them too, and sometimes I turn them off. But they are full of historically accurate and interesting information. I usually agree with a most of his points, and regardless of my personal feelings about one part or another of his presentation I won't discount the whole thing.
