Expecting Rain

of course that is the intent, i think bob has somehow chained them onto this board forcing them to read and listen to the snippets which they resent.

What's wrong with that? Seriously, is there a law somewhere that says "Bob Dylan has to produce genius work in order to keep the small special interest group on ER satisfied?" No. No-one's forced to buy it or listen to it or deal with it in any way. The way people are whining about this spells deep disappointment, like he's somehow let them down. He hasn't, because his work usually doesn't come with a 100% satisfaction guarantee attached.

Mine too.

Whereas my vinyl edition of the original John Hammond production back in the sixties curiously AVOIDS copyrighting the songs to Johnson, and goes for 'Copyright control', which presumably refers to the performance and the ownership by Colombia of the masters ....... in the meantime, the Johnson family have 'asserted their rights', understandably. But NONE of this is proof of the origiality of Johnson's lyrics in a blues recording session where almost everything is a rehashing of previous lyric versions, as has been attested by Son House and others. And this we call 'the Folk Process'.

^^^^ which is exactly my point if you read my full original post... my copy's a wierd 80s vinyl copy in any case...

^^^ I am agreeing with you!!

thats probably because when columbia put it out nobody knew the whereabouts of johnson, if he was alive or if he had any family, so yes they were protecting their masters. since then, they found one of his sons if my memory serves. there is a whole story about the johnson royalties, im sure you can find on the net.

also, folks on the net have corrected the speeds so now he sounds warmer and less frenetic,

I disagree. You're a football man. Did you watch Maradona for the final score?

The plot is not merely the ending, like someone may watch a Hitchcock film in expectation of the twist. While it's easy to say that you enjoy Shakespeare for the language or the humour, is not that main point of a play - at least for the audience it was written for - to entertain? And is not much of the entertainment contained in the plot? Anyhow, I'm just playing Delvil's advocate, my point was that Shakespeare appropriated alot of his work from various sources yet his work has nonetheless artistic merit for it.

Yeah, I know the plot isn't merely the ending. I couldn't be bothered to write 'kick-off, throw-ins, fouls, free kicks, corners, penalties, sendings off', ok? MY point is that Shakespeare is remembered for his writing rather than his plots, just as Maradona is remembered for his football rather than the minutiae of his career.

And I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you... It's just somewhere along the line we got stuck on the subject of plot... my point is that despite being 'guilty' what some on this board might describe as 'plagiarism' the merit of his art is not affected.

And Maradona is remembered mainly for his handball... I mean great header... against England ...at least by the Scottish!

Shakespeare's Roman plays are based on Roman history and the classics, while his history plays are largely based upon "Holinshed's Chronicles," a collaborative effort first published in 1577 to collect the tales of the histories of England, Scotland and Ireland, with special emphasis given to feuds, battles and lineages. Most of the history plays, including 'MacBeth,' 'Cymbeline' and 'King Lear' have plots lifted from the Holinshed chronicles.

I think the 'plot' of a play is not the same thing as 'what the play is about.' I don't think people read or watch 'MacBeth' to learn how MacBeth becomes king or how his reign is ended but rather to experience the range of human emotion in 'MacBeth', including hubris, guilt, rage, hatred, lust, love, fear, courage, dedication, cruelty and betrayal.

You could easily fashion a dull play or film from the plot of 'MacBeth.' 'MacBeth' endures due to Shakespeare's profound insight into what it means to be human on the highest and lowest levels and to experience that insight in the greatest language that was ever available to any one human being. The plot was not the thing. God is in the details.

somehow we've turned this into a discussion about shakesperean plots from me using the fact that some of shakespeares plays may not have had original plots as an example... I probably should have used the dialogue or speeches, soliloqiues ect as an example... anyhow... the fact remains that appropriating older work to create something new is not necessarily wrong! ...And I agree that I watch/read Shakespeare's plays for their incredible portrayals of life, love, and the weakness of man.. ect.

They trolled and they tumbled,
and they cried the whole night long,
Dylan wrote another lyric,
must have copied somebody's song.

The latest 'official' set of Johnson's recordings on Columbia / Legacy still credits all the songs to him. Each and every one.

Right, well despite all the protestations, this is now a thread about plagiarism and for some strange reason all the anti-Bob supporters here are unsurprisingly ignoring the fact that we could (as they claim to want) turn this into a discussion of the complexity developing from his amazing clever borrowings just by concentrating on THAT rather than on that silly and (in my opinion) inappropriate word plagiarism ..... So - I intend to just shift over to the Scott Warmuth thread instead - at least THAT'S a bit less repetitive and does what they claim to want.

Sorry if I don't see 'anti-Bob supporters' here. Maybe it's just you?

Thread for any plagiarism that anyone spots

So if the songs are really decent...

Does it really matter?

Obviously it does to some people or we would have 362 threads on this topic. That said, is there really an original thought or tune out there? Every artist will attest to being inspired by a riff, chord progression, and the like or hearing a line or a thought from a song which becomes a springboard for their own composition. Does it really matter if someone takes 50 seemingly disconnected lines and thoughts and sewing them together into a seamless fabric of a masterpiece?

I don't think its that big of a deal myself.

late breaking news: it turns out there is no such thing as the mafia.

I thought it was one big happy family! What are you seeing that we don't, inthealley?
And WHY would an "anti-Bob" supporter come here?

Whatever he's doing, it's always been so far removed from anyone else's work - and so much better - that I don't bother to think about it.

I remember George Harrison lost a lawsuit over a melody some years ago. If there was much to the idea of Bob as a "plagiarist" we would have heard about some people successfully suing him. I haven't ever heard anything.

Bob 'borrowing' from Ovid or Andrew Marvell does nothing to diminish Ovid or Marvell.

don't make myths!

Have you ever listened to The Fall Mr Path?

I am very much and outdoors type person and listen to all the seasons and am especially drawn to the Fall. The changing leaves, the crisp temperatures, the gentle breezes blowing as the birds begin their trek south. Sometimes I sit and watch, and more importantly, listen, to the Fall. Its my favorite time of year.

May I ask what that has to do with Bob and plagiarism?

Very droll Mr Path.

You complain about the lack of originality " out there". The Fall continue to be one of the greatest and most original bands ever. Don't think they have ever plaigiarised anything. You should listen to 'em.