Expecting Rain

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-3445_162-57 ... d-thieves/

They mention Bob briefly, but only about the made up quotes that guy got in trouble for. If only they knew...

Classic!

They didn't mention him because what Dylan does is NOT plagiarism, he is just following the 'rules' of music tradition..... you take a song or a poem, or a whatever and reform it into something else..... it is not like he thinks his sources will not be found..... they will.... and are..... He is right, it is not easy.... and if you think it is.... then go ahead and try it.... many have tried, few have succeeded, and very few have succeeded in the way that he has......

I don't believe Bob is a plagiarist either. I don't know if you actually watched the video, but Bob fits the criteria, if just a tiny bit.

Bob can hide behind the term "folk music" for the rest of his life and I'll always be one of his campaigners. I was actually thinking to myself earlier, albiet just coming out of a deep sleep, but perhaps Bob silently pays for use of these lines, he definitely has the money for it, or maybe they're just truly honored.

Mental pygmies ... they're everywhere.

In fairness, Bob's blessed he's part of that tradition. It served him well when writing his 'autobiography', which he fitted into the tradition too!

Oh, I am sure that if you put almost any successful writer of songs, or books, or plays.... under the bright light and go over everything there are very, very few that will be not found to be borrowing..... unless they are writing on cave walls...... I mean really.... Shakespeare really isn't the author of any of his own work.... ..... and on any given day various other people are named that really wrote his plays....
You gotta be good to steal... you gotta be really good to steal a lot!!!! I stole that!

"Steal a little and they throw you in jail
Steal a lot and they make you king."

Just sayin' . . .

"In your own words" is easy to say, but what exactly does it mean? None of the words I know are mine. When I write (and I write a lot) I am aware that my mind is full of templates of phrases and whole sentence patterns that I've picked up from books (I could possibly trace a few right there in those sentences, not to mention this one - not to mention "not to mention"). I also replace words I've already written with better words I come across in subsequent reading. That's conscious, deliberate lifting but fair game because words belong to all of us. I have even been known to steal a whole phrase or two that worked better than my original, but I was aware of taking someone else's thought, albeit one that coincided with my own, and it didn't feel satisfying.

At some point, phrases contain a meaning that have wider significance in their original context, forming part of the writer's larger thought-picture. If I were to pursue this larger picture I would be repeating someone else's ideas and not expressing anything, which would defeat the point of writing (unlike in exams, or words-for-profit, where there is a pay-off that is not artistic in aim). If, however, I deliberately take phrases from various sources because of their innate meaning (not necessarily their wider significance) and stitch them together (with modification where necessary) to form a new pattern of meaning, that is still artistic expression because the new pattern is my own. The difference is that I have eschewed the common word pool for a common body of literary expression. Is that plagiarism or is it a form of meta-composition? That depends on what plagiarism actually means.

"In your own words" is an impossible injunction; "in your own phrases" is a questionable constraint, dependent on what you do with ones you deliberately copy. The main thing, though, is to express your own wider thought-picture.

All well and good, Unwaved, but if you lift the riff from Mannish Boy and build an entire song on it, why not credit the original composers?

Similarly, without arguing what constitutes or does not constitute "plagiarism," if you lift a chorus from the Mississippi Sheiks, why not list them in the credits?

Back in the day there was much moaning and gnashing of teeth over white performers/producers/A&R men, etc. stealing songs from black writers. Is an exception to be made for Bobby D?

I think this video demonstrates just how true this quotation is:

http://www.corbettreport.com/911-a-conspiracy-theory/

or for a more in depth investigation:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UFx1WaK5 ... re=related (This is one of the best documentaries I have seen in recent years) It has an IMD rating of 7.9 which is very high for something so controversial, yet utterly convincing.

Only a pawn in their game still sings true perhaps louder than it ever has. With all due respect, how the great majority of North Americans can just let their politicians past or present just sweep arguably the greatest cover up of the killing of 3000 killings on home territory go under the carpet, leaves me absolutely baffled.

As one father of a victim of 9/11 states near the end of the video, 'the story has to be told.... the problems with Americans it's like a big iceberg, we live at the tip of the iceberg and we are afraid of the dark truths of our history and it's getting worse and worse, well this is a real dark truth....and it will pull the whole iceberg down....we have to learn the truth or this country isn't worth anything.
Could the comments of Dylan in RS magazine about America have come about at a better time? Is the Titanic still a better subject matter for Dylan given what the father said above to summarize our imminent demise?

Lance Armstrong springs to mind and he is just one man and yet kept the authorities off him for 10 or more years. It's scary to think what he could do being just one man.

I think the people that are in denial and just sit back while the shit hits the fans, those that still believe in the power of the vote and some prat in the president's seat is going to change things for the good just because he is black, I think they deserve everything they get, their future generations don't deserve it though.

The Nazis got away with all that stuff not because the majority of the German people supported them but because they closed their doors and windows and sat back and did nothing.

The above goes for the UK as well, and the rest of Europe too and wherever else, GOD HELP US.

How can you be sure the "original composer" had this riff copyrighted, let alone access to a recording studio?

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."

"Some people still sleepin', some people are wide awake"

I wasn't necessarily trying to defend what Dylan has written but to clarify what is meant by plagiarism. Nevertheless, to address your point, I don't see what crediting anyone has to do with the accusation of plagiarism. You are still taking someone's riff (though whether it belonged to Muddy in the first place is a moot point). Should an artist always credit sources? And if so, which sources, and at what level does it become a source of material rather than merely of inspiration? Do I have to prepare an appendix for every work I produce?
My point being that I think the answer is a firm "no"; that's not the artist's responsibility. If you're that interested you should do it yourself.

Of course, we can never know who was the first to use the riff that Muddy Waters popularized. But one thing for sure: Dylan knew that it wasn't he himself.

To me, it's a matter of conscience. If it's someone else's song, don't try to pass it off as your own. That's as simple as I know how to put it.

Do you think he does try that? Not every single one of his listeners will know where he got it from, but I'd think most do, in the cultural framework that he acts in. I mean, why are we discussing this and not the Lennon lyrics?

Well, we're discussing this because the topic is plagiarism.

In this case, yes, I do think he tries to pass it off as his own. Unless the songwriting credits read "Dylan/Waters/Mel London/Bo Diddley."

"Come together right now over me" is hardly an original Dylan lyric.

T.S. Eliot said "Immature poets imitate; mature poets steal"

So what if he did? Just because TS said something, does it close the argument?
But to the question of writing a song that's "not your own" and claiming credits. Again, I'm not necessarily defending Dylan in every respect, but as to the principle of using published material and changing it around to make something different: why should an artist explicitly credit all sources? Which ones? Should he credit the original source or just the intermediate source he actually used? Should he research the origin of every riff and turn of phrase? Do you think Aldous Huxley's novel Brave New World should carry the warning, "This title is not my own words (well, not precisely in that order) but is taken from Shakespeare"?
Just saying. It's a can of worms that's being opened up with this crediting business. You may find much less is original than you first supposed.

But in the case of Roman Kings, he doesn't "change it around to make something different." He lifts the riff note for note, beat for beat.

As to which sources should be credited, I would say the earliest known ones.

I think you said you write? Me too. Would you ever sit down and put new lyrics to someone else's melody without crediting them? I wouldn't. Maybe that's why I'm not Bob Dylan.

Hell, he did it way back when with Don't Think Twice, It's Alright (a/k/a Understand Your Man).

According to Wikipedia:

"Understand Your Man" is a 1964 single by Johnny Cash. The single went to number one on the country charts for six weeks. "Understand Your Man" also crossed over to the Top 40, peaking at number 35.

Cash borrowed parts of the melody from Bob Dylan's "Don't Think Twice, It's All Right"."

Of course Don't Think Twice was part of Freewheelin', released in 1962.

The melody [of Don't Think Twice] is based on an older song, "Who's Gonna Buy Your Chickens When I'm Gone."
This is also from wiki.