Les chic n swell : comedy trio (TV n standup) - used the line Ducky Wucky: atonally almost :P "c'est deux jumeaux et ils se resssemblent pas, y se passe n'importe quoi dans cette histoire la" "they are twins but dont look alike, anything goes in this story line"... Like Pat the NES Punk does in his Flea Market Madness skit?
25:48 🤔 why are you posting an antisemitic cartoon in this video Adam? You wouldn't use an old Disney cartoon mocking black people so why are you doing to it Jews? I'm unsubscribing
And are we seriously going to ignore the 17, 000 Blues songs that are exactly the same chord progression, and exactly the same melody note for note, just with different subject matter in the lyrics, all of which have individual copyrights?
Another great example of the "citation" idea in action: Lil Nas X sampled a Nine Inch Nails instrumental to create Old Town Road. When Trent Reznor got contacted by his legal team about this rapper blowing up using one of his songs, they were pressuring him to sue. But Trent told them, "No, don't sue the guy; just get him to add a songwriting credit." The rest is history.
Just another reason to like Trent tbh. Just asking nicely for a songwriting credit gives everyone wins. Suing isn't worth shit unless there's a legit defamation or misuse concern. (admittedly that's another muddy conversation over things like parody and satire rights in musical expression). Citation would make the legality of music a lot easier to navigate, especially with stuff like sampling and common musical motifs.
Pretty sure at least one of NIN albums was released with a creative commons license. It stood out in my memory, as there was a thank you, please use this music note inside the cd case.
I'll be honest; that's a great way to discover new music. The album you really like has citations you can follow to discover new things that already relate to what you like. It's like, as Adam said, academia, where you can trace an idea you really like to a plethora of others expanding on that idea, or even trace it back to the original source (or as close as you can get). Imagine how great that would be for smaller artists who get sited on a top 40 song. The listens and publicity sent their way could be transformative not only to their careers but also to their lives. Say you like a Rammstein song (arbitrary example), you would see artists such as Laibach, Front 242, Wagner, Einstürzende Neubauten, Skinny Puppy, or maybe Front Line Assembly. That's a whole new world of music that is practically tailor-made to your taste. I'm all for it. I think it's the perfect middle ground. Now, we just have to get the driver of world copyright law, the Disney corporation, (via the US government) on board.
As a ghost writer for several djs, I was once sued by one for accidentally re using a (simple) bassline across 2 different producers tracks. For decades in the pop/ dance field I had long used the term "monkeys and typewriters" referring to law of infinite probability. The lawsuit was drawn out and agitated hugely by the suing dj's wife, who flat refused to believe me that there were only 12 notes in music, never mind 7 in a typical song or even less in a house bassline! She just wouldn't accept it, music was still magical to her and she was adamant I had done it consciously / maliciously.
Pfff, are they fckin skunked? I feel for ya bro, I can somehow accept the fact if you reproduced like whole Metallica song note for note or something, but this feels like the next thing they'll sue you for is fuckin 4/4 signature or swing level, every house/ukg producer should stand for our rights and collectively sample that exact fckin song and exact fckin bassline purposely, then what? They gunna sue the whole genre? 😂
@@bradejensen omg it was a mess. you ready?! Deep breath.... So, not only did the DJ sue, the record label also sued for breach of contract, even though this was a publishing/composition matter their contract was a recording contract that had nothing to do with publishing! go figure. Both parties were much richer than me and hired lawyer firms that were charging £200 just to send a single email, so that was staking up every day. Even though I was technically in the right regarding the bassline composition and the record contract, they sued from the Netherlands, so I would have to prove myself in Dutch court, I am only confident in UK and US copyright law, so I hired the only Dutch law firm I could afford. They advised if I wanted to go to Dutch court it would probably cost £30,000 minimum, and in Dutch court there is no guarantee of recouping legal fees if you win. They also advised that the firm the record label had hired was notoriously aggressive, wealthy and influential, and that we should just settle before it gets REALLY expensive. So, we agreed to settle out of court, as soon as possible before more lawyers letters were sent. In the end I lost £9.000, I became ill from the stress (never happed to me before) and lost 4 months of music work, because its just impossible to be creative when that is hovering over you and the phone is ringing every 30 mins.
@@bradejensen no, i still own the line, the settlement ruled that particular recording was to never be released, until recently where a leak went viral with it on tiktok, someone has stolen it and released it themselves (probably via that original lable I imagine), and I certainly am not going to waste any more time on it lol. its a 2 bar melody bass line, all within 1 octave, nothing faster than 8th notes, in Locrian.
@@bradejensen yes (well as far as a 2 bar melody can be unique anyway) , it was certainly more a melody line than a static functional part on tonic, with question / answer format with a non static rhythm too. a hook in other words. And it was the central hook of the track too.
A well known local case here in Australia involved Greg Ham of 80s band Men At Work and their famous hit 'Land Down Under' - an innocuous question on a music quiz show in 2010 suggested that the flute line in the intro performed by Ham was taken from a popular children's song 'Kookaburra' that was written in the 1930s - A company who had purchased the rights to that and other similar songs in the 1990s then immediately took Men At Work and EMI to court for copyright, in which they won the case - They recieved 5% of backdated royalties for the song, and sent Greg Ham into a state of depression as he was concerned that his legacy would be known for plagiarism. He died in 2012 to due a suspected heart attack in what was a rather sad end and no doubt the court case would have been a contribution to his death - The company that won the case has had literally zero contribution to the world of music - disgusting result
It's sad that Greg Ham felt that he would be judged harshly about borrowing a riff like that. It was a big hit, made a lot of money and the copyright holder was obviously motivated by the chance to get a cut. The way the case was reported would have influenced how Ham felt he would be viewed, I recall it being framed in terms of plagiarism and rip off rather than just another musician borrowing a riff, something that happens all the time. When I first heard Jeff Beck's Rice Pudding I realised it was the riff Hendrix used to close out In from the Storm, and that Hendrix intended it as a little tribute. There are hundreds of other examples (Sweet Windy City = Deep Purple My Woman from Tokyo), Ham did nothing different to Hendrix here, except that Jimi knew that Beck would appreciate the reference and that was that. However (now that I think of it) Noel Redding was not given a co-writing credit for the opening riff of Ezy Ryder; as a posthumous release no blame attaches to Hendrix, but the music world is full of such stories. Sometimes it's about the money, sometimes just recognition, sometimes nobody cares and they just let it slide. Ham did not deserve to feel guilt for Down Under/Kookaburra, however another Australian band, the Angels, had a big hit with Am I Ever Gonna See Your Face Again a shameless rip off of Status Quo's Lonely Night, reached a settlement and seem to have escaped much public censure, despite borrowing the entire song and changing the lyrics (at least they were good lyrics).
Greg Ham was one of the examiners for my high school music exam back in the day. I was really proud to have included some woodwind (tin whistle) in amongst all the guitars and pianos. So sad that that little quotation, and resultant copyright drama soured his life, and took away his confidence. I reckon the question writers at Spicks and Specks are being a bit more careful about what kind of trivia they are unveiling.
It was also a dodgy scam; the "offending" phrase(s) was barely similar, taking account of rhythm percentage of song involved; it was far from obvious, all western music is 'derivative' unless we dump equal temperament, diatonic scales & chords, 4/4 time etc, just as communal music of Indonesia India and Africa is culturally derivative and expected within their traditions.
Even if copyright was reduced back to a more sane duration of, say, 20 years - the lifespan of patents in most countries - it'd be a damn sight less creatively stifling than the status quo, despite not being particularly satisfying from a philosophical POV.
@@InXLsisDeo bullshit. That fucking thinking is how we got here. The Constitution of the U.S. gave CLEAR limits. (because it's a fucking contract, the author on one side and the public interest or culture on the other) One 14 Year term with ONE 14 year extension (assuming you filed for it). That was it. It was greed and business interests that increased it. It's been our culture that they have been charging us to enjoy. If you think selling out your culture is ok, maybe you shouldn't have a voice at the table.
@InXLsisDeo Why that long? Copyright is a contract with the community and not a property. You share your idea/invention with the community and get some protection in compensation, but not for life.
@@InXLsisDeo Why? You write a song or book that becomes popular for a while, and then a year or three down the road it's gathering dust while other songs and books become popular. If you want to encourage the creator to create more, a lifetime copyright is too long.
It also made me appreciate the music in that show a whole lot more! It's cool enough when a kids' show has a jazz score (as all the best seem to: Charlie Brown, Mister Rogers, Bear in The Big Blue House, etc.) but it's even cooler when they pay homage to/acknowledge the culture like that.
I remember humming out a riff one day in my head and I was really excited to pick up guitar and work on it. Not long after I realised it wasn't my own but something I realised was part of a song I had listened to a few weeks earlier. I feel influences are a massive part of music too and have their part to play in this discussion. Someone might involuntarily plagarise or borrow and perhaps sometimes not realise because it just hooked its way into their head and came out while song writing.
Yeah exactly. I once accidentally wrote the chorus to Bulls On Parade. I had it in my head and it felr like an original idea but written out, I realised it was the song. Sometimes it just takes that long to notice your influences. I didn't steal it and I didn't consciously know where the influence came from.
So in that scenario -- how would you be able to cite your source? Well - in this _particular_ case, you realized what the source was once you wrote it down. But what if you hadn’t realized that until after the release? Or what if when you _did_ realize having heard the tune before, you could not remember the artist, the song name, or anything else that you would need to cite it? While I can understand where Adam’s idea of citing your sources comes from -- due to concerns like those that I just mentioned, I am skeptical that it will really solve anything at all.
How the shit did he go for 30 minutes to come to the idea of creative commons licencing...without mentioning creative commons? Take away the most limiting categories and there we go. I guess it's appropriate - coming to the same idea independently and me asking to include the citation. Somehow I can't believe he doesn't know about cc haha.
25:48 🤔 why are you posting an antisemitic cartoon in this video Adam? You wouldn't use an old Disney cartoon mocking black people so why are you doing to it Jews? I'm unsubscribing
@@xp7575 he probably didnt know because thats maybe just some clip that showed on a footage library. most people dont constantly look out for antisemitistic aspect of things.
I really appreciate the motivation behind your "citing sources" idea, but I have some thoughts: A lot of the time I don't think people who write music really know what their influences are, exactly; that's true for me, anyway, as someone who occassionaly writes music in the Western classical tradition. The influences that musicians take from are so diverse and wide ranging, it's probably impossible to be accurate in citing your musical influences. It might be interesting, though, to see if this requirement would change the way music is written. If it did, would that be "bad?"
In a citation system you don’t need to mention every influence, only if you are directly paraphrasing somebody else. Like if I write a paper on copyright I don’t need to reference every thinker that has influenced any thought about copyright I ever had, only for the ideas I am mentioning in my paper that were directly inspired by somebody else, like if I base an argument on someone else’s paper I need to reference that. In a song context I wouldn’t have to cite all my practice books and theory books or every piece of inspiration I had. But if I want to directly use a bass line from some Funk record for a specific song, even if I edited it; I need to reference that.
Even if you could remember everything, doesn't this just amount to another form of gatekeeping where people who don't have an academic background would be at a disadvantage? But also it sounds like very not fun to basically demystify the whole creative process so that the excitement of drawing from multiple sources gets bogged down with "but what if I miss a citation?" I mean, the current system sucks too, but I can't see this system helping my creativity.
@@ffsrsw yeah, and the question is, where would the lines be drawn for how it's legally regulated ? i mean personally i think it would make sense if the lines were drawn in similar places they are now, just for citation instead of literally not being allowed to use it, (but maybe even more lenient????) ? either way i feel like it should be something that comes naturally enough that it doesn't turn music writing into academia (although music-as-academia could have a place as a replacement for useless assignments in music courses which have nothing to do with actually creating music)
Citation is actually a pretty big piece of certain folk traditions, especially in live performance. It’s expected within certain circles that performers not only explain the history of the piece, but their own history with it: who they learned it from and what version they learned.
Precisely. It's how all cultural production should be approached. In all things we should honor those that came before. It's simply decent and respectful human behavior. Not only with regards to your "elders" but also to your audience, peers, and progeny.
"all belongs to all" (kropotkin 1892) is the only citation to be expected in some other certain circles and their folk traditions involving live performance/protest/striking/etc get a copy of the little red song book and see for yourself; it is impossible to claim anything is owned by anyone
also, in most folk and non-European art music traditions (in lots of places there's not always a clear line btw the 2) that chain of transmission is important but in addition the assessment (by audience and other musicians) of a player's skill lies in how skillfully and imaginatively proceed to ornament the piece of music--a musician who just plays it straight is a bad musician--so they're expected to ADD TO and 'improve' on their master's work.
@oaktree_ idk who you are but i just fell in love with you a little for bringing up Turkmen traditional music and actually knowing something about it. :D As a fellow ethnomusicologist, i'm thrilled. I have a few articles and books on the turkmen tradition, you would be interested to read the English translation of The Tale of Crazy Harman (Harman Dali) by Slawomira Zeranska-Kominek. She also gives a great commentary on lots of aspects of the tale. There's a lot of that mentor/apprentice going on between the characters in the tale, and iirc Slawomira discusses it in her comments as well.
It’s always surprising and upsetting to see how many musicians, artists, designers, and creators are on social media, forums, and other internet communities staunchly enforcing an “anti-piracy” mindset because they believe deeply that copyright law protects them and other artists. In large part, copyright lawsuits and dmca action have become opportunities for supermassive corporate entities to advertise a fable of “protecting the little man” without ever having to show where the money they collect is going. Newsflash, artists: it’s not going to other artists!
@@ecoRfan It's both. The difference is simply that scales of power tilt toward the well-funded corporation. Copyright can't be just a matter of banned for corporations and acceptable for individual artists. It has to be applied to all or applied to none, there's no room for double standards here.
My Master's Thesis was titled 'A Critique of Musical Copyright as it Relates to the Allocation of Publishing Rights' and I covered a lot of the stuff in this video. Super interesting stuff. The main take away I got while researching and writing my paper is that the current system of musical ownership is simply unsustainable. It was always unsustainable, but considering the rate of musical creation has increased tenfold since the 1990s, it's just a joke at this point. I proposed a few alternative methods to the problem of musical ownership in my thesis. Would be happy to share them.
Biig Renaissance music and music publishing nerd here (I have an actual PhD on the subject) and I am jumping in the comments (without having watched the whole video 'cause I am too excited) to say that basically, even then, music copyright was basically a biiiig clusterfuck. Publishers of printed music "pirated" each other's books all the time, everybody published official "copyrighted" stuff but also clandestine stuff, and the fancy copyrights you got from the king or your local authorities only worked when said authorities actually bothered enforcing them... Basically, the more things change, the more they stay the same.
I agree, and in the past nobody owned chord progressions. Many composers copied others' chord progressions. Maybe a way round being sued is to copy a J S Bach or non-copyright progression.
Fascinating video. As a former lawyer (I consider myself an escapee) and guitar player I struggle with idea that we can judge plagiarism in music from a score. I think 12Tone did a video saying notation is NOT music. We have to listen to it otherwise we are trying to judge a painting by only reading the names of the colours used. One additional thought. Individual rights are supposed to protect the individual from monopoly power (money or swords). This starts with "get off my land" and extends to anything that can be treated as giving value. That requires a means of exploiting that value. But the modern means of exploitation make monopoly almost inevitable. Music is not like language. Copyright may work for novels but not for chord changes and notation will not work at all for much of modern music. To be honest I don't know what the answer is but clearly there is something wrong with the current system.
Well, in case of copyrights, the intent of the whole copyright system is to give this individual the monopoly, not protect from it. :-) I'm beginning to wonder if the copyrights problem doesn't boil to simply statistics and overproduction. Of course the idea of copyrighting only the "worthy" works is tempting but who's to say what is and what isn't worthy? Maybe it's simply - contrary to the common approach pushed by the big companies owning the copyrights - the time to shorten the protection period. If I remember correctly, the Berne Convention ensures that works are protected for at least 50 years (or is it 70?) after the author's death. Compare it to patents which only last for 20 years. And patents often need huge investments to be useful whereas audiovisual art can be distributed and used at effectively almost no cost.
@@SpadajSpadaj As you say the Internet allows distribution at what amounts to zero cost which benefits those who control legal ownership. Here in the UK our legal system started with William the Conqueror imposing one legal system common to the whole nation hence "common law". It was initially focused very heavily on land and the structure was intended to ensure that ownership was clear and could not be usurped through force or fraud. Enforcement of title and performance of feudal duties avoided anyone but the king securing too much power. Any society structured around asset wealth tends towards oligarchical monopolies but the feudal structure limited that effect. Intellectual property ring fences some elements of ownership in a similar way, creating a limited monopoly that is protected (in theory) from those with more wealth and hence more power. Unfortunately the Internet seems to have broken that system because there is no effective means of policing the process. In music we have almost completely shifted from a sales model to a streaming model which has added to the power of the likes of Scooter Braun. Maybe it is time to abandon copyright to dilute that power and live the other problems that such a free for all will create.
@@SpadajSpadaj yes the Berne Convention is a least life of the author plus 50 years. Then according to the Wikipedia "List of countries' copyright lengths" article, many countries have additional "copyright terms based on publication and creation dates" with the United States having "95 years from publication or 120 years from creation, whichever is shorter" for many works. This is the obscene "Mickey Mouse" copyright term extension pushed by Disney scum.
@@Birkguitars Well, for all it's worth, streaming and internet as a whole is both a great way to find something interesting if you're really trying to (without it I'd probably never discovered much of the music I'm listening to today) but on the other hand, for an average not-very-demanding user it's a tool for uniformizing the "taste" and distributing the same product (because it's no longer art) to the mass public. So it has its good and bad sides. There is no equivalent of more ambitious radio programs which you would listen to because there was nothing else on and you could have picked up something completely out of your circle of immediate interests. Now if you listen to something, the algorithm will push you more of the same. And of course streaming companies pay even less than record companies but that's a well known fact. Which of course hurts the niche artists much more than pop giants.
@@SpadajSpadaj Yes, but I think maybe the point is that the intent to give artists a monopoly on something they create, or any facsimile of it, is a wrongheaded notion from the start, or at least in direct conflict with the fundamental ideas underpinning most of our other laws. There's a lot of classical liberal thought on property that went into designing our current legal systems, but those ideas applied to a concrete notion of property as a real thing that can be possessed exclusively. So for example, a piece of land is a concrete thing I can define for the court with a title or platte of survey. I could own this piece of land and use it as I please, or Adam could own it and use it as he pleases. But we can't both own the same piece of land (unless we're in a partnership together or something). The law can look at something like that and make a definite judgement based on the facts. But if an idea is suddenly property, then it's not concrete or exclusive. Nobody can point to one physical address for an idea, or put an idea in a box, or give us some scientific report detailing all of its measurements and properties, so there's nothing concrete for the law to work with. And it's not exclusive, since any idea that gets put into the world can spread to anyone else, and any two people might "create" the same idea independently. One way to think about this is: "How could property law work if someone invented a Star Trek replicator?" Say I own a car and someone points their replicator beam at my car and suddenly there are 2 cars that are exactly the same down to the molecular level and indistinguishable. Do I own both cars? My name in on the title in the glovebox of both cars, and they both have the same VIN numbers. Or does the man who replicated it own the copy? He expended the resources and time and effort to make the copy, and owns the capital that allowed him to produce it, and he can claim that I never paid a cent for the second car, so any proof of ownership must be fraudulent. Now consider that we already have Star Trek replicators as far as IP is concerned and this is already the path that treating ideas as property has led the law down.
Even though I have a composition degree, I hardly ever compose and primarily identify as an arranger and keyboardist. The fact that most new compositions already draw so heavily on existing music is an illustration of why arranging is often quite satisfying for me - it's a lot of the same activity, but without the pressure of coming up with original melodies, which was never a strong suit of mine.
Creating original music is great but hearing someone else's take on something already made is also cool. Everyone's got their own artistic style and flavour, which is why I enjoy listening to other peoples interpretations or takes on musical ideas.
The state of copyright lawsuits in the music business always feels like this sickening, atrocious thing happening right in front of me that I can do nothing about. It gives me some solace to see someone like Adam working to inform the public on how this can be better.
Do you know how many lawsuits are filed every day that have absolutely nothing to do with music or copyright? Tens of thousands. A free society means it's easy to be a litigious society. If copyright is really what's keeping you awake at night you should consider volunteering at a food bank or something and get your perspective rearranged.
As a non native speaker, I always felt awkward to pronounce 'rural'. Nice to see a native speaker with the same struggle. XD Also, amazing video as always!
Patentright and copyright have always been more of an evil than a good. For the good aspects there are always a tenfold of collateral damages and stunts in progress. This is why I will always love ZUN who created Touhou and it's music. This man has never cared for copyright hence why reuse and remix of his music is just immense. This man has been producing music art and games since the 90s. You can find everything on RUclips, I can upload it, do anything with it. Others can make infinite art. He's one of the few that understands. On the other hand another of my favourite musicians Tame Impala, when I play even a shitty cover on my detuned piano. RUclips will put a "melody claim" on it. I love his music but I aint performing it if I get literally punished for it like that. It's 100% impossible to monetise any Tame Impala musical content no matter how transformative. The thriving of a fandom, art genres and all of this amazing stuff are directly affected by how stringent the artist is on his copyright. And I remain of the opinion that copyright does more harm than good. Both to the artform itself and the artist.
Adam's videos need to be used in college classrooms. Clear main idea, effective structuring and flow of points, extensive research, awareness of the audience, relevant topics, creative and original voice...
Creative and original voice and well presented. Nothing else. Little or no research. No understanding of the subject matter especially with the song "Lets Get it On". Outrageous idea that songwriters should have their earning power reduced or taken away completely. That is what I read into it. Have I misunderstood the last bit ?
@@TranquiloTrev I haven't shown this particular video, which is very new. There are always discussions about the material I present, but I definitely wouldn't call this one "nonsense".
The realization of where I know that melody when you showed blues clues absolutely blew my mind. I grew up with that show. And as a musician today I personally hold the belief that if someone is inspired by my music, they are free to use that inspiration to build off of it or use part of it to create something new. I am by no means famous. Barely popular, if that. But I would feel honored to know someone used my art to create more art.
I've been writing music for 35 years and this video blew me away. Such an honest and interesting take on what music really is from a compositional perspective. Thanks Adam, you rock! 😄
I once got a copyright claim from a company claiming to own the composition rights to Dvorak, who died in 1904. Someday I'll release my cello metal arrangement of Dvorak.
I got a content claim for the use of the melody in my video of a flute sonata with harpsichord accompaniment composed by the French baroque composer Michel Blavet. The sheet music is available on IMSLP both in facsimile and modern scores copied by volunteers.
@@stitch3163 It's going to take a lot of practice, haha, but maybe I'll have time to practice enough this year. It's my most difficult arrangement. It's mostly based on Dvorak's 7th symphony 3rd mov't, but instead of having interplay between 6/4 and 3/2, it has interplay between 7/8 and 5/4.
My favorite example of how I feel like it should be, is somebody asked The Strokes where they got the idea for the riff in "Last nite". And Julian Casablancas said "You know that song american girl by tom petty? Yeah we stole that riff" And nobody was mad because the way in which it was used was unique, and it was a clear inspirational moment to make a completely new song
The segment on sandwiches and music creation blew my mind. For one, because when you said that most people only have a daily, intimate relationship with consuming music rather than creating it ... I've assumed that everyone goes through their day, singing and composing their own backtracks to their lives. And then when you mentioned mysticism around production ... such mysticism doesn't exist for me with music, but it DOES exist with food production 😵💫. To me, of COURSE you can't own a musical idea - that's as silly as claiming copyright over English grammar. Yet it was unexpected to hear that most recipes cannot be copyrighted. What a spectacular analogy.
I think the citation idea is brilliant. It may even lend a new sense of seriousness to modern music. And let's keep in mind, this is already a common practice in hip hop music because of sampling. If we consider the gangster rap of the early 90s, Dr Dre borrowed heavily from Parliament funkadelic and did not shy away from giving them credit. The result was a lot of kids who are into Dr dre, Snoop Dogg and others eventually learn about George Clinton and '70s funk. Everybody won.
Yes, so much yes on that. I hope that citations thing takes off as a good chunk of artists start doing it. Would be cool to see what inspired music I enjoy, without going on extensive research sprees.
They only work when the quoting/sampling is done consciously. If you hear a melody in the background at the supermarket and later go home and "write" the same melody, you may not have a clue that you actually ripped someone off.
But what happens when you don’t know you made a piece of music, melody or chord progression that resembles that of someone else? You just wouldn’t know you had to make a citation. We cannot and do not know all music. Wouldn’t this undermine the idea of using citation?
Hearing the Thelonius over and over made me think of, "He's making a list, checking it twice, going to find out who is naughty and nice." Not 1 for 1, but my brain connected the two. Return idea to sender. What's sad about the music litigation is that it isn't about music, but has a large impact on people who make and sell it.
This is my favorite video you’ve ever made. You put so many things I’ve been thinking about it into clear, accessible, and well-researched terms. The sandwich analogy (and the note about the mysticism of musicmaking) is super appropriate, as is your citation proposal. Thank you.
As a young music student, I think it's important to realize that we shouldn't let the fear of being unoriginal stop us from trying to compose. I know of loads of people who have said, "I try composing things, but then I realize that it's just a popular song that I've heard before." Of course it is. That's how the composing process starts. very few small ideas are original, but how we develop them will always be at least a little bit unique to us. At the very least, we will learn a bit about the structure of the music we've heard before which was memorable enough to stick in our brains and come out in our composing.
Yes, there are also different ways of looking at conventions and clichés in different styels. Some think it's just grey and uninteresting while others like me tend to look at it as a langague wth an inherited vocabulary and grammar.
Insightful thoughts. Listening to a wide variety of styles and artists, grabbing snippets, concepts, ideas, and inspiration from all over, throw them in your meat computer, and see what you create as a result.
I think that it's a bit problematic to propose that composers should quote where they got their ideas from. Because though some composers and songs are really inspired in something they heard, sometimes something may be composed out of no clear reference. And even if the composition is actually very similar to some compositions from the past, sometimes who composed later never heard that song or heard and didn't even remember. As you said in the video, there are some very common ideias to play in instruments like the guitar. So it might be easy that someone can't quote where the exact idea came from, also because only a few people who compose are musical researchers, or people with a wide repertoire and musical theory knowledge. Thus, I think the system you propose might be problematic in many cases. Maybe not, but I think it's worth to think about that too
... No? Sometimes if you'll will eventually create something that sounds like another person's work. When it comes to copyright, I see music shouldn't be subject to it on the compositional side at all, but only lyrics.
I think another problem with the citation proposal is that it frames music creation in a very specific way: that it’s the act of carefully compiling and soldering together bits of work from a handful of other artists, then making a product out of it. I think this trivializes the spontaneity and inspiration that goes into a lot of creative work, and makes it “serious” in the same way academia is. For most people, this just isn’t how they make music, nor how they would WANT to. Idk, I like the sentiment, but this feels like it would change what the process of making art fundamentally IS.
@@birdwatching_u_back I mean like blatant copying of lyrics or 50 vs. just a sampled. Though sampled stuff I view shouldn't be subjected to copyright as the context is SO DIFFERENT from original on average.
whether you want to or not, how you make music is directly influenced by the music you have heard, which is why some composers isolate themselves from other's music for lengthy periods of time to try to minimize external influences. i would argue that making music is already in this format, although we may not know who exactly to cite, we are in fact borrowing from musicians that came before us
I like your idea about the citation system, but I feel like it’s just different. Artists are always influenced by others, but, unlike academics, aren’t going around citing their work. The few songs I’ve written were likely influenced by *many* artists, but I can’t directly trace that influence. I don’t know where it came from. It just sounded good. And I don’t have the knowledge or skill to parse the chord progressions in the music I listen to.
I think this could be done retroactively: If an artist feel that he/she influenced your piece can just ask for recognition. Someone could be in charge to check if this is true or not. In general I think it's a good idea, but of course it could take a while to flesh out all the details and implement it the best. Better yet, I think this could and should be done in other fields. I have been watching some stuff about novels and there are similar issues to distinguish between ideas, tropes and the fact that some concept are known to work best, therefore their usage is become common and their ownership is a problem.
The same applies to academics - as a philosopher I can't tell you to what degree, say, my knowledge of Kant may have influenced my intuitions regarding bodily autonomy. We only cite when we *know* we're using someone else's work for a conscious purpose. And for someone to establish plagiarism, they'd have to prove I consciously used their work without citation as well.
I think the citation idea is more about protecting artists in cases like the Sheeran-Gaye case. Some artists might be 'scared' to admit they borrowed directly from someone else because it can cause financial and reputational damage. If, however, you could simply cite an artist you got borrowed from, you'd not be worried about being sued for doing so and could more openly talk about your influences. In fact I reckon that's why a lot of artists don't openly talk about who influences them. They know they're borrowing ideas from all across the industry (and that's ok), but admitting to such could get them in legal trouble.
I think you just independently conceptualized Creative Commons. It currently has about as much legal authority as open source software licenses, insofar as they're not codified into law, but this exists. I would absolutely love seeing a later follow-up video exploring and shedding a brand new light on Creative Commons from your musical perspective!
Yes, Adam Neely's "cite your sources" proposal is mandated by the Creative Commons By Attribution License (CC-BY): as long you give Kevin McLeod credit his music is free for you to use. His site incompetech seems to provide mp3s, not MIDI or sheet music; releasing the performance under a Creative Commons license might imply that the composition can be derived from the performance and the same license applies to it; people have uploaded scores for their arrangements of his songs to MuseScore. But I Am Not A Lawyer. A problem with this and Adam Neely's suggestion is you building off someone else's song that's CC licensed and/or citing it may not help if someone with money and lawyers sues claiming that your source in turn rips off their song. But I ANAL. Adam Neely should make another video on alternative licenses and music.
Creative Commons licenses (and open source software licenses) get their power/function by letting you do things that copyright wouldn't by default. You agree to those license terms as soon as you do something that only those terms let you do, and thus assume the corresponding responsibilities.
7:04 It was at this moment that I not only sustained major psychic damage but also realized "wow I really was basically shown jazz musical concepts that are comforting at a really early age"
Oh yeah, that's been part of children's TV for a while, using jazz musical principles. Heck, Sesame Street back in the 70s and 80s would just go full-on... well, just check out the time signature here: ruclips.net/video/GksEo8EDXiE/видео.html
I personally found it healing to revisit this little jingle as the video progressively got more and more ridiculous with explaining how ridiculously musical copyright is enforced. The psychic damage for me will come later when I can't stop singing this for about two days.
Thanks for Your elaborations, Adam! There's one problem I see with Your proposed citation based system: When composing, I have very ofted found ideas, that I had to realize were not my own. Given the vastness of the world of music, it would be almost impossible to find the source of an idea, if it isn't being chosen consciously. I try to not "steal" ideas, but if I find a melodic motive and can't find it in the music I remember having heard before, I claim it as my own. The apple on the roadside tree, so to speak.
I think this is a good point but no different from the current situation as it relates to the sure knowledge/statistical inevitability of producing something already tried. Whereas now this might be resolved in the courts it could rather be resolved by adding a citation at a later date or perhaps allowing open source edits to citations? I guess people would also knowingly refuse to cite. This would likely be called out if the music was in any way popular enough to provide some living and result in loss of kudos to the artist and in effect become a citation in itself. I'm sure this doesn't answer all points/objections but it sure is interesting to think through! 🙂
This happens in scientific research too. Sometimes you have an idea and later find out that it's already been done. Usually a colleague points it out to you, and you simply correct your manuscript and add the correct citation. It's not a big deal.
Yes this is a problem. You could reference the literature though. “This harmonic idea I took from this old textbook on harmonic analysis”, “this chord change I read about in this guitar book”
While I think the citational system you propose is a very interesting thought experiment, I feel like there would probably be some major problems if it were actually put into place. For cover songs, or sample-heavy music, it might work well enough since the provenance of the cited work is pretty clear. But I'm not sure it would always be so straightforward to identify 'prior art' for most compositions that are seemingly new. There have been times where I've revisited songs that I wrote after several years and realized, 'hey, that riff is sort of like the riff from song X that I've listened to a lot'. Likely this is no coincidence; I heard song X and subconsciously added its performance techniques, its chords, its melodic ideas to my repertoire, and later on when writing music these ideas resurfaced. The problem is, had you asked me right after I wrote it, I may well have failed to realize where these ideas were coming from. In other words, a citational system puts an additional burden on the composers of new music. Perhaps at times there is an obvious answer to how the cite one's sources, but I can imagine that especially for complex music written by a person who has extensive, eclectic tastes, it would take a lot of time to go through the possible sources of musical influence to ensure they were not leaving anything out. And insofar as time is a resource, one which is often interchangeable with money, such a system gives a distinct advantage to artists with money - those with the backing of a major record label, or new artists who have existing wealth. Less popular, less wealthy artists are at risk of failing to meet the requirements of this kind of system. There are other problems too. What if I wrote a song substantially similar to song X, but in fact I had never heard song X? It's possible for multiple musicians to stumble upon the same idea independently. Does the prior art get credit in this circumstance? If so, does everybody now need to cite Riehl and Rubin in every seemingly 'new' melody? And if not, how can we prove whether an artist heard some apparent music influence?
Yes, this citation idea falls into the same trap as the whole IP framework, namely the confusion of conventional techniques with _ideas,_ whatever those are supposed to be. That is the main problem with those high-profile suits like the Marvin Gaye business or the endless round of medium fish suing big fish either because they have misunderstood their own creative process or are cynically hoping for a settlement (Andrew Lloyd Weber and Led Zeppelin lawsuits are the most well-known of these, probably.) When it is said that the use of the progression I-I6-IV-V is an infringement of someone's intellectual property rights, that is _strictly analogous_ to saying that, say, if someone writes the lyrics to a song in English and then you do, you may potentially be infringing their property rights because every sentence in your song begins with with a subject, has a verb in the middle, and ends with a noun governed by the verb, just like the previously written song.
There was mention that publishing companies handle this responsibility which alleviate the artists need to do it. I had the same thoughts as you until Adam suggested that as well. The idea is not that the music is copyrighted, or can be copyrighted. The idea is that they potentially "inspired" the idea. As you have just pointed out, there are caveats but unless an idea is proposed and the caveats worked through, we going to be stuck with this copyright issue. The end result of these discussion might be something completely different to the citation idea but had it not been for the citation idea, the discussions would never have been had. You can cite me on that LOL
Maybe given the technology that we have today, let some kind of AI based service figure out the citations. As mentioned, often even producers and composers don't know the true origin of a musical idea, or maybe they tough the idea was original when in fact they cited something subliminally. since it's unreasonable for a composer to do such extensive amout of reaserch before every song is released, let AI figure it and tell you what prior songs used the same musical ideas
What you classify as "problems" with the requirement of citations for music composers, your critique only presents issues or challenges for consideration, with no clear idea that invalidates the idea. The idea of "clearance" by this same requirement of citing prior art runs across all fields of law regarding property. - Clearing Titles/Deeds in Real Estate, Clearing EVERY SINGLE purchase/sale of Stocks/Bonds/Securities, and the "implied warranty" of all products and sales of services - the seller implies s/he have legitimate rights (ownership or license, by title or verification of Public Domain) of property/service being sold/transferred. Adam's idea of prior art citation requirement would bring the unruly traditions of COMMERCIAL music (performance and composition and recording) more in line the mature practices of commercial invention (Patents/Trademarks). A timely idea and suggestion in the era beyond MFPS (MegaFlopsPerSecond) circuits and Google digitization of as many archives and libraries as it can get to, as well as Gates'/Corbis' run at same indexing of fine art/museum/curated collections of historic note (commercial value) around world. Distinct legal categories of music composition/performance/recording may develop in legal and commercial practice, just as licenses to drive on public roads and highways have categories, dsignating levels of rights and responsibilities, from private citizen, to Commercial Truck driver, and other levels. Thanks for chiming in with your ideas, and imaging some edge-cases, though in no way invalidating the value and likelihood of Adam's idea already in the works - at least in the minds of Gates, Pandora, ASCAP, and the entire commercial insurance industry, as well as those in IP law.
@@kennethhughmusic Putting the burden on publishing companies is just kicking the can down the road. Publishing companies will not work for free, and likely artists will need to pay up front, or, as long as money results from citation itself (as Adam suggests royalties be paid to cited artists), a cut of these royalties. In either case, it seems like the system would promote those who are already rich or successful. Perhaps it might still be a better system than what we have now but a lot of the core problems would still exist.
Laughed out loud at “this is a good Christian video” 😂 Excellent video Adam. These long form video essays are some of your best work. This topic is only going to continue to keep becoming more relevant so I’m happy you took it on in depth
Got a kick out of that. I think it's also cool to use the Bible to point out capitalist legal and economic nonsense, since many have tried to use God and scripture to reinforce those institutions in the west.
ChatGPT just made this video even more relevant. How does copyright/licensing work when the author is an AI built by a private company that takes a user’s unique prompt and uses a data set of others’ copyrighted work to generate something new?
It's already been determined by the Supreme Court that an A.I.'s work cannot be copyrighted, as the definition of art is, "the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination." The key word there is HUMAN.
I'm glad I checked the comments before I said anything, cause the first time the video played the riff I was ready to say "That's totally the Blue skidoo song." Thanks for the inadvertent warning that Adam also noticed.
It feels like you just ctrl-F melodies/chord progressions and find instances of them being used across all genres and time periods. I'm so impressed by the depth of your research!
22:38 That is a very bold assumption indeed. After all many people who watch this channel are also musicians. Also a really excellent video. Thank you.
I thought about how to 'solve' intellectual property quite a lot before and also arrived on a citational system, but you worded it a lot better than I did
I spent a significant amount of time pausing this video, so I could write my own thoughts on this topic...only to ultimately delete them all because you hit every point I wanted to make. Nicely done! The odd thing is that, as an artist who will likely never achieve fame or fortune, I actually love the idea that somebody will hear my music and love it enough to be _influenced._
Oh Adam Adam thank you for this. I'm currently doing my dissertation on sampling in music and the devastating effects that copyright law has had on the culture, and this is beautiful summation of the history of music as intellectual property. May I add the real sinister aspect of musical copyright law, recorded sound, has taken this exploitation to an even higher level. Technology is currently in the works for major labels to add an inaudible 'tag' built into the metadata of any audio that would be automatically identifiable if even a NANOSECOND is used in a piece. If used in a belligerent fashion....it could give major labels an absolute authority over sampling in music in its entirety......
Charlie, yes. I wanted to jump in. I am asking my jazz improvisation class. And I'm also in the ,midst of a dissertation, in my case about Sun Ra and the idea of jazz combined with valued, personal mythologies. CH, write me anytime if we overlap. Probably not I suppose, but who knows.
@@alsamuef I do respect your passion but things are not quite so simple. For example if I do art that makes me rich and it features the color blue, that does not mean that I can then copyright the color blue. In addition you have tossed out of hand the idea of a derivative work which is very much part of democracy, for example free speech. Otherwise all comedians go to jail. Every comedian riffs on what they see. Music actually does include satire, comedy, parody, irony, take offs-- all done with good intent. Well, unless you wish to say that all art and all comedy is slimy. Also, too, most all of academics since that blatantly not only quote stuff but have the audacity or advanced slimy to say that they quoting and where they are quoting from. So comedy, all colleges, and music... gone. Okay. :) All meant respectfully. Maybe parenting is slimy, haha. Kids liking their parents and carrying on some of their work in life. Noooooo.
@@artistwintersong7343 Sampling is not creating original music. It is taking someone else's original work to claim as your own. If You "sample" in a college paper you will be flunked for plagiarism. If you sample in written work, either without citation or to an excessive degree you get sued. There is a very limited degree of sampling in visual art through collage but in most cases if you copy someone's original piece of visual art you can be sued for copyright violations. Why should music be different?
Music/philosophy/economics, three of my fave things to think about. This is a brilliant thought-provoking and well-researched essay. It's really good and I like the concept of citation sans ownership. Throughout the vid I was thinking of the egregious example of jimmy Page copying the way Bert Jansch played Blackwaterside, itself a traditional (I think) tune. I think Bert would have liked a citation, a nod to his creative labour, people could have discovered his recordings and Page could just have feel better about himself.
Great performance. If you're referring to the descending string of notes after each chord, It sounds like some Led Zeppelin song parts, but which ones specifically? Is it really novel to Bert Jansch? Steve Hackett should have applied for a design patent on his guitar tapping, and lived off licensing fees from Eddie Van Halen 😉.
@@skierpage These things will always be contested but I just now searched and found an informative blog post on the Jansch Blackwaterside arrangement vs Led Zep's Black Mountain Side on a website called turnmeondeadman. It's a discursive look at the details of the 'controversy'/song history. The similarity is striking and I think Jimmy Page really should have seen Bert's arrangement acknowledged on the record (and quite possibly wishes it had been for all the times some no mark like me brings it up!) I've recently learned a Tim Lerch arrangement of the old standard Manha de Carnaval and can play it quite well but even though I already play it slightly different in places and as time goes on will no doubt add further deviations and digressions there's no way I could look someone in the eye and call it mine.
I mean, you call Jimmy Page egregious for not citing Bert Jansch, but might I ask if Bert Jansch openly cited who he copied/who influenced him to play it that way? The entire centuries-long history of folk music is people learning songs from one another (ergo no paper trail) up until 20th century musicians cashed in centuries of musical development for themselves under the false pretence of them somehow being more 'original' than later artists who did the same thing but then got screwed over by the greed of their forebears; now there's a paper trail, the lawyers can get involved. It's little wonder people complain about modern pop being so samey when anything even remotely interesting risks exposing you to a lawsuit from songs you never heard but could get sued for because they have over 1mil plays on RUclips/spotify/soundcloud or was on the charts 50 years ago so you 'might' have heard it. Sticking to copying public domain songs like pachabel's cannon or some variation of the classic Am F C G chord progression is one of the only ways you can be certain you won't loose a court case. Everyone stands on the shoulders of giants; 'originality' is just a faliure to cite your sources and that's why composition copyrights are BS.
@@Neion8 Bert credited his version of Blackwaterside to Trad, arr Jansch whereas Page credited his Black Mountain Side to Page. Although LZ's Black Mountain Side stands as piece of art on it's own and adds some sitar or sitar-like effects and while collage and changed contexts are valid artistically the guitar part is clearly Bert's innovative arrangement and was known as Bert's at the time. Jimmy learned it from someone but credited the work to himself. I've learned to play some of Bert's songs and arrangements myself back in the day, almost note for note, and whilst I would happily nick some ideas and techniques for my own tunes without crediting, I wouldn't dream of changing a title of a Bert song, play it like Bert, maybe add a cello and then claim it as my own without giving due credit. I essentially think that what Adam says in this video is a good way to go with musical ideas or sounds not being owned but citations given when artistic labour is lifted. It's the cool thing to do. Having said all that I must admit Led Zep are a particular bugbear of mine, I just don't like them, their haircuts or their plodding sound 😉
I put this video on as some "noise" while I ate the sandwich I just made. This video hit me in so many ways that I didn't expect lol. I have such an odd relationship with originality and quoting in music. As a kid, I used to go out of my may to not learn guitar licks because I felt I was not improvising if I was stringing them together. It had to be me and the 12 notes and nothing more. In hindsight I can now see how a nobody in the music industry like myself could have been so passionate about following copyright laws very strictly. I suppose as a kid I never really thought about large firms buying up music publishing and fishing for infringement cases. I think this is one of the best copyright youtube videos I've watched. I've seen quite a few from lawyers, musicians and streamers but none of them make you think much. Also having a love for science, I feel almost embarrassed that I have never thought of the concept of citation in music creation. I've enjoyed other videos by Adam more (ie. favorite interval...still kills me. I just checked) but somehow he made this video about copyright (and sandwiches) that hit me hard intellectually and emotionally...well played, sir.
What a totally excellent analysis! This is something I've been thinking about for many years and it's amazing to see Adam explain this with so much pedagogy behind it- must have had great mentors and role models! Great video!
A lot of things about Adam's videos are amazing but one thing that always boggles me is how he manages to stich so cleanly different cuts, with his speech in perfect continuity, when the two sections in question were obviously shot not only in different locations but different days and different setups lol. I wonder if he watches the last bit of video before starting to record the next bit so he can continue the line exactly where he'd stopped.
I would say a big part of it is done before the recording begins: a clearly detailed script pointing to the exact cuts etc. Also he definitely ( I mean, it's very likely) has presets for EQing and editing sound recorded in different places (like, "Studio Audio Main Mic", "Subway Audio Phone Mic" and things like that)
God bless you, dude. This is the role of the public intellectual: explaining the deep silliness of the assumptions underlying musical copyright decisions from an informed perspective.
A bit of a pushback--the idea of citation as a way to give credit is going to be more comfortable to a musician with your background. Musicians outside the academic system may likely be less able to articulate what their influences are, although it isn't like every high school deathcore band invented all their ideas. (A researcher could investigate where these musical ideas came from, but I don't think that intellectual work has been done, and maybe it won't ever be; people can only know so many things.)
I've been following your youTube presentations for several years now, and this is one of the best (so far). Having been a faithful watcher, I would like to point out the significant improvement in your standard of living (the background stuff). It's nice to see that a practicing musician can make a decent living at their art (craft, whatever). It's also wonderful that you have kept the (literally) 'found art' on the wall, which, I might add is pretty cool.
26:51 note: you can contribute to creating such a culture of sharing by licensing your work under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license. Under that copyright license, anyone who uses your music must a) cite you and b) give others the same freedoms you gave them, with their own music. The law could address a citation system individually similar to copyright. You'd just be able to sue anyone who doesn't cite you for some amount of statutory and/or actual damages. This is how Creative Commons and other free cultural licenses function, and they seem to function well, so I don't see why not. Perhaps enforcement could be delegated to larger organizations. I believe copyright should subsist for commercial usage (but only for like 10 years or so), so maybe such organizations would have a commercial incentive. I think not enough attention is paid to individual copying, since I think the utilitarian argument for copyright rests on the necessity of authors and musicians to produce works. As you mentioned, there is a special "class" of people who produce books and music, and copyright is designed to encourage that class to exist and continue functioning smoothly. However, the only purpose of the existence of such a class would be for enjoyment, and ultimately, it's the consumer class that does this. Therefore, to ensure this "transactional" process goes the way it should, consumers _also deserve rights._ It's currently the case that consumers aren't allowed to share an MP3 file with friends or peers, and I think a culture of sharing would be much more valuable. (Note that this also helps smaller authors who might not otherwise be able to access certain music.)
You will find it is almost always laws for thee, but not for me with some people. It's just leverage and grandstanding for them. They cry "not fair" as they themselves "cheat".
So the last point, which is - this copyright thing limiting your creativity in studio - is so depressing and discouraging. I felt it so much while using samples in my own work. So many songs are now collecting dust in "cool but i'm afraid" folder on my harddrive. And everytime, even if i know, that thing i used is practically unrecognisable, and it have almost nothing to do with the original, sample is so short, so flipped and processed beyond any recognition - it still creeps in my mind time to time, that it is somehow copyright "protected". Yeah I know that nobody gives a damn about some noname nobody artist in some 3'rd world country, but this thoughts anyway appear time to time in my head for many years. And for some time recently, as this points about copyright started and continue to rise, and this situation is talked about more and more I decided something important for myself. All this big tech companies, huge lawyers, dehumanising corporations, total control of people's lives and thoughts, freedom of speech and freedom of movement. They just monetize and take control of our freedom of expression. And I decided at least for myself, that I've had enough. From this time i will do whatever i want with whatever i have. I will not steal someone's work and call it mine, as it was never my intent. I don't give a damn about copyright laws, because they as of right now are completely stupid and make no sence. And if this corporate dogs would try to take my work down and bring me to court - just they try. I will fight till the end, and will not hand myself out to them alive. Let this be the precedent.
Good video. One thing that I felt was missing is that of the recognition of the work done and resources expended to make a particular expression valuable enough to be cited in the first place. While Ed (whom Ive’d work with) and Marvin (whom I haven’t) both used the same playbook in terms of the particular chord progression. Marvin and his estate have done a considerable amount more in terms effort in promoting and performing that riff. The most popular version wins I’d say. But I’m just theorizing on the credibility of labor (all the labor outside of just (re)playing the riff!) that is involved in taking a record to market especially in the days of Marvin vs today. Maybe a nothing burger but that stands out to me mostly because of its absence. Anyways…will be “citing” this video for my class…keep up the good work! 🤘🏾
Lupe, If I understand you correctly, you are 100% correct. I think you could have been clearer in the point you were making. Why did Sheeran choose the "Lets get it on" baseline to "copy". Because it was one of the great baselines played by one of the great bass players. Who was also one of the great musicians of his generation. As such it is of great value. Neely doesn't seem to understand this. Or, he is just plain lying. He talks about this baseline as if he or anyone else could have done it. He is 100% WRONG. Anyone who cannot see this shouldn't even be in the music business. Judging by the responses here, It seems like a whole generation, his generation, cannot see it either. It is either sad or pathetic. I don't know which.
I'm working on understanding the relevance of the aspect you point out. I wouldn't have even noticed your name 😯 if this rather unpleasant fellow above hadn't repeated it. His trollish vitriol defused any impatience I might've held regarding _your_ analysis. 😅
@@crnkmnky Yet you ignore the vitriol of Neely when he says the judge in the case was 95 years old. The judge is not 95 years old. It is his way insulting an older person [ageism] who is much more qualified and much wiser than him. BTW I have given a full analysis behind my opinion you have given nothing.
I largely agree on most things you said in this video. The one exception is your idea that a songwriter should cite their inspirations/sources. It works in academics, because you can make a statement and find a past academic who said that before and quote them. However, implementing this in music would be immensely complicated. Less experienced and young songwriters might not fully understand their influences, but they can still go viral thanks to the internet, like TikTok. Then they'd get into legal trouble because they didn't clearly say where the ideas came from, because they themselves might not even be sure. Or someone might be making music and not have their sound figured out yet... realistically some might start thinking of their influences, but others might just write what sounds good to them without knowing why. And what about subconscious influences? What if I heard a song as a six-year-old that I have long forgotten about, that subconsciously influenced melodies I gravitate towards? Would I need to write the Teletubbies, The Wiggles, Hi 5, Hungarian folk music I heard growing up, and the alphabet song down every time I make a song that miiiight have been influenced by these things? Additionally, due to the death of the CD and the dominance of music streaming, the average person's musical influence is significantly more diverse than ever before. Most people don't just listen to one genre anymore, which has inspired creatives to make countless new subgenres with their own micro-niche. It's entirely possible for someone to make music that perfectly fits the description of a hyper-specific subgenre and not know the name of it, or the fact that there's more music out there just like it. It's the same problem as with the current copyright system, people can easily come up with the same or a similar idea independently, or in a way that is directly influenced but unintentional because it's subconscious. This isn't to say that this idea of citing your inspirations is impossible to implement, but to make this idea work it would need to be very well thought-out for these sort of situations. Especially in the ever-changing digital landscape where information is instant and culture and society can be drastically different from one year to another. A law change like this would need to be future-proof in the same way the current laws are not
It‘s not as clear cut in academics either. Sure, you need to find a source to cite if you want to put a piece of information in your paper but oftentimes you just know something. Then the challenge is finding an article or some shit where it‘s written and you can cite that. Also to what degree do I have to cite? If I say the sky is blue, do i need a citation for that? what about general knowledge (like what a ham sandwich is)? It‘s also interesting when you need to put something in your paper but you don‘t have enough expertise to actually word it yourself. And it‘s just one line, so what can you do but basically copy that line from wikipedia. Is that plagiarism now? Sometimes you can‘t really word it any other way because the wording is so important. I suppose citation in music would be similar. Some references are intentional, some obvious and some you‘d need to bullshit through. In the case of broader ideas it wouldn‘t really matter which song you cite, as long as you cite one that uses that riff.
I'd argue the biggest problem is trying to own ideas _at all._ Because how do you determine how much of a thought is "yours", really? And how do you monetize that? The way things are now, it's the type of thought you own that determines what you get. Like, a mathematical proof that solves an unsolved problem gets you a one-time prize (if anything) but a patent that makes use of that proof gets you a 20 year monopoly? And if you write a story about it, then you get royalties for your entire life + 70 years?? It's all so stupid.
I am ALWAYS looking forward to your video essays. They are really well-done, highly educational and I learn a lot about theory and music in general. A big thank you! 🙌🏻
I loved this video, and although I agree copyright laws are out of touch I don't think a citation mandate would be all that great. When I write music, I don't do research first. I just create based on instinct along with my accumulated knowledge and abilities. I may play something I've heard before, but who knows where it came from? I think copyright is obsolete and should be limited to lyrical content and the recording itself. Chord progressions and beats should just be considered tradition, shared knowledge. If you are writing original blues music then you are already very limited by the traditions of the form (beats and 12 bar chord progressions) . The only parts that may be considered original are your lyrical choices and whatever personal style you bring to the party. I think it's great to list your influences (in general) but to be obligated to do so for every piece you write would be a nightmare. This is a very thought provoking video. Thanks, Adam.
The only possible shortcoming of a citation system may be subconscious influences. An artist may have an idea for a melody, thinking they came up with it, not realizing it’s from a game soundtrack they heard a year ago - or even another artist that this artist admires and actively listens to.
This is so good. Thanks Adam for shining so much light on this. As a producer I've had hundreds of conversations about this with musicians and listeners only to realize that A) none of it really makes sense to me (and that's why it's so damn hard to learn) B) when I finally grasp any of the systems that govern the musical copyright, I usually heavily disagree with it on a moral plane. Keep on doing the hard work!
I feel like the proposed citation system wouldn't work for a number of reasons. Unlike when writing an academic paper, there's a large part of the process that happens subconsciously, both when consuming music as well as when writing. It would be by definition impossible for an artist to cite a song that influenced them subconsciously. Other issues might include WHO to cite (as established in the video, it's difficult to pinpoint who "owns" a musical idea) and WHEN to cite (at what point does a musical idea, for example a II-V-I, become public domain?)
Also, it sounds borderline classist to me. Quoting is an intellectual act. Imagine someone like Kurt Cobain having to put his work into context before being able to release it. I just don't see it...
the thing is - you don't cite the owner of an idea, you cite a piece where you've heard that idea. and if that goes for long enough - interested parties can find one person who first came up with it (likely - no one, because no idea is fully original, they're all just iterations, lol) but it's not really a solution for a legal dispute, just for people to not get tilted when their work gets plagiarized (in part because they get compensated with *exposure* mwahahah)
@@shammerHammer I'd say it depends on how you view the citation process; sure, if an academic writes a full PHD and *then* decides to do all their referencing, then that's a huge task to do all at once. But if you cite as you work (whether that's in academia or in music, eg. "oh, I remember hearing this lick in a BB King song once"), it just becomes part of the process, and not this huge wall you've got to climb over before you can release your stuff
I totally agree. Hard to cite sources of a tune or motif that came to you in the shower or in a dream, which is not uncommon for creators. You'd have to source everything you've ever heard up to that point.
@@robertreid2241 While you're right about citation being part of the process and not something to do in hindsight, music and academic writing differ a lot here. Unlike writing a paper, "writing" music has very little to do with putting words on a paper. If I have to put down my instrument in order to write down where the lick I just played came from, it would pause the creative process and hinder the flow a lot.
This is a great video and all, but it's super frustrating because I had the idea for citing sources already! But Adam gets all the credit because he's a big RUclipsr.
Adam you are a remarkable teacher. I'm speaking as an experienced IP professional who teaches a graduate level IP Strategy course at Wharton for future entrepreneurs, creators, and industry executives. My course emphasizes technology innovations, but more and more we analyze innovations that are deep cross-overs between music and tech. There is so much to learn from your memorable videos about *how* to explain and teach these ideas!! Am feeling downright inspired after watching this. I truly hope that perhaps one day I can entice you to guest in one of our classes and share your perspective live with our students if only for a few minutes -- remotely, whatever is most convenient and workable for you!
For that entire first section I was praying and hoping you would bring up the blues clues part and when you played it i actually cheered. thank you funny music man
You never cease to surprise me with your research. Even after studying music at a grad level experience every video you give constantly adds to my knowledge. Thank you so very much and great respect on your content. Valuable as shit even on RUclips.
I'd love such a citation system! The amounts of musical rabbit holes I could fall into by working my way back from the songs I love... I'd take that a thousand times over the illusion of originality
I actually really like the citation system and when I make my own music I often inadvertantly have tried to do the same. There's this song called "Oh Montmarte" by Kristen Kristmason, an obscure Quebecois folk and jazz musician. Somehow though, my dad found her music some time in the early 2000s, probably a lucky find at the library. The lyrics are in French, I language I don't speak, though my father speaks it. I asked him what the lyrics meant one day and then wrote it down. I swapped some words around to make it sound good in English and have similar syllable characteristics to the French original. I play that song for people a lot and they ask me if I wrote it, and I say no but I translated it and also half the words are my own edits, but the original story is maintained for the most part, and also when I first learnt the song I learnt it by ear and actually learnt the chords slightly differently than what I've realized the real version is. So yeah, I kinda did write it. I'd say I wrote about 60% of the value of it when I play it. By any labour theory (which of course the US legal system does not recognize), I'd say I own it.
That system is bollocks. If you never heard a song in your life, who will you quote? chances are there are 40 compositions sharing your same chord progression, out of the billion songs registered in world's history, you will quote them all? and why you will quote them if you got your idea from your own head?........this system also leaves open to sueing and losing your copyrights on your own music.
This is incredibly stupid, I'm a musician not a music scholar. If I borrow from somewhere, fine, but if it happened by accident? If I have never heard this song or composer? Or did I hear it by accident a million years ago and it just surfaced subconsciously during a session today? Or maybe after every new track I have to search thee world music database? Oh wait, there is no such database. There is nothing more stupid and easy to abuse than this idea.
Another great example of this kind of situation is the similarity between Carlos Lyra's "Maria Moita" and possibly the one most recognisable guitar solo ever (Deep Purple's "smoke on the water"). It was an example I was expecting to see in the video.
The main question in this video is: Why should we pay musicians, composer, lyricists? And many people don't unterstand why is a homemade sandwhich cheaper, than a sandwhich in a diner - but the other way round it's quite simple: EVERYONE in the music industry get's paid: all the CEO's and employees at youtube, apple, spotify - WHY NOT musicians, composers and lyricists? (Musicians get 0,04 cent to 0,08 Cent per stream from tech-companies and spotify... Last question: A.I. is not a person - who get's all the money? Big companies or the little guy? That is the "elephant in the room" in this discussion. IMHO)
You're simply the best RUclips channel on music. It is quite impressive to watch how good your video essays are. It gives me a sense of satisfaction. When are you going to tour here, in Brazil?
Really well researched and presented! Thank you for putting this together. You are instrumental in helping us get past the inhabitions that the fear of not being "original" can impose. Keep up the great work.
This is an amazing video, man. I have listened to many discussions about copyright and this is the first one that massively shifts my understanding of it. Plus you have some super-clear and concise musical theory in the middle.
Every judge on the planet needs to watch this video. Twice. EDIT: And every lawyer thinking about bringing one of these stupid cases forward. "You watch the video yet? How many times?"
Just to note about the Beach Boys Remake of "I can hear music", with the Ronettes recording the original. It was one of the first songs by the BB that Brian truly had no involvement in, whether it be composing, producing, or playing any instrument or adding vocals himself.
Loved this video. There's something about people explaining things both passionately and rationally that I find so... beautiful and fascinating. Thank you :) also Eliminate being featured in one of these was completely unexpected hahaha
I find your proposal at the end of the video very interesting. While it makes a lot of sense for things like jazz and sample-based music, it wouldn't work as well for other styles, and that's because it's often difficult to know what sources you've drawn from when making a piece of music. Every piece you listen to contributes towards your cultural understanding of music, and so you're very likely to use a compositional element from a specific song without knowing what song it was from. What I write is influenced by so many things in small amounts that it would be impossible to cite any of them because I just don't know where the ideas came from. Requiring every significant contribution of ideas to be stated would be very difficult in many cases.
I agree completely. The first “jazz song“ that I wrote took the lyrics from the apostle Paul in the New Testament. The chord progression was a simple 251 in the key of C changing to the relative minor A minor to D7 followed by a riff in D minor and ending in a tritone substitution. I have no idea whom I would site as the source of the inspiration for this chord progression! I don’t think the apostle Paul understood jazz theory.
@@TranquiloTrev 😐 Dude. I can see you and that big chip on your shoulder. What do you need: a hug, a ham sandwich, an escort? Perhaps get some instead of blaming Adam. 🥱
Reggae, rocksteady and ska borrow stuff from each other all the time. As I keep driving into the history of Jamaican music, the more references and shared vocabulary I see throughout. Makes sense since those early ska bands were heavily influenced by American jazz. It’d be interesting to see what the copyright laws are in Jamaica and if derivative works are protected. Great video!
So true, as far as I know copyright law in the early days in Jamaica was an absolute mess, in regards to musicians/artists not being payed. In terms of exchanging the riddim and re-using each other I don't really know if people actually really went after each other, I think you're right in saying re using musical ideas would be so ingrained in their music as much of it came from re interpretations of early american jazz or pop tune. And the idea of re recording a vocal over the same riddim, or re mixing a dub, was such a vital part of the function of music in those early days. Though I do seem to recall Coxone from studio one being pissed at channel one or something for re recording all his riddims.
Jamaica has it's own copyright society, called Jacap, but most major artists rely on US societies as Ascap or BMI. In the early days, it was a mess, with studio owners like Coxone Dodd or Duke Reid, basically getting royalties for everything with songwriters being highly penalised, not to mention musicians whose contribute was also huge. Over the years things got a bit better, but still a lot of loopholes are exploited to take advantage of less business savy artistes.
@@BrowsSmellLikeShit today if you use a classic riddim, but update it or modify it sensibly, you have to quote both the composer(s) of the original and yours or that of those who did the adaptation. And all this goes for the 50% music, while the lyrics 50%, obviously, is credired to the lyrics' author(s).
I always love how you put these videos together - excellent writing and composition. This one unsurprisingly particularly amused this one-time philosophy major with grad degrees in theology. I enjoy music so much and wish I understood it better. This channel is a huge help and really entertaining along the way.
Je suis français et je ne suis pas sûr d'avoir saisi toutes les subtilités du discours d'Adam mais qu'est-ce que c'était intéressant ! J'adore la conclusion: le copyright n'est plus là pour défendre le droit des artistes mais est devenu une source de revenu pour certaines compagnies. Ce même principe de copyright fait tomber dans l'oubli des artistes majeurs. En effet ,en tant que papa d'ado (12 et 18 ans) je sais qu'ils et leurs copains n'ont aucune idée de qui sont The Beatles, The Rollings Stones, The Eagles, etc etc etc Tous ces artistes, dont les droits sont détenus par des compagnies qui font la chasse au copyright, sont simplement en train de se tirer une balle dans le pied: les prochaines générations n'en auront rien à faire d'eux, alors que vaudront ces catalogues? Nada. A+
Rick Beato talks about this whenever one of his educational videos is blocked due to copyright. While their current customers are dying off, Don Henley and Universal Music Group are in effect spending money to prevent young people from ever discovering their precious intellectual property. 🤦🏿♀️
![Jack Harlow - Hello Miss Johnson [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Q86_nlRoIGw/mqdefault.jpg)
🚀Watch this video essay ad free (with bonus content) on nebula🚀
nebula.tv/videos/adam-neely-the-grotesque-legacy-of-music-as-property/
can you own a chess game move set?
no.... so arrangements vs partitions,
that's complicated foer laypeople
thx for the stims
Les chic n swell : comedy trio (TV n standup) - used the line Ducky Wucky: atonally almost :P
"c'est deux jumeaux et ils se resssemblent pas, y se passe n'importe quoi dans cette histoire la"
"they are twins but dont look alike, anything goes in this story line"... Like Pat the NES Punk does in his Flea Market Madness skit?
25:48 🤔 why are you posting an antisemitic cartoon in this video Adam? You wouldn't use an old Disney cartoon mocking black people so why are you doing to it Jews? I'm unsubscribing
It's interesting how "blue skidoo we can too" has completely reified this small lick from I got rhythm.
The amount of law suits happening over chord progressions is actually scary. Especially with jazz being built on borrowing
Especially because many other types of music and most importantly cultures!
Fuck record labels and people who "own" music other than the actual composers.
How and who is trying to copyright chord progressions?!
@@OurgasmComrade every record label...?
And are we seriously going to ignore the 17, 000 Blues songs that are exactly the same chord progression, and exactly the same melody note for note, just with different subject matter in the lyrics, all of which have individual copyrights?
Another great example of the "citation" idea in action: Lil Nas X sampled a Nine Inch Nails instrumental to create Old Town Road. When Trent Reznor got contacted by his legal team about this rapper blowing up using one of his songs, they were pressuring him to sue. But Trent told them, "No, don't sue the guy; just get him to add a songwriting credit." The rest is history.
Yes. Because that way he gets paid, and it's no longer stealing.
@@sagittated Exactly. People think of citation as just a friendly "hat-tip". No, it's a hat-tip and an acknowledgment of monies owed.
Just another reason to like Trent tbh. Just asking nicely for a songwriting credit gives everyone wins. Suing isn't worth shit unless there's a legit defamation or misuse concern. (admittedly that's another muddy conversation over things like parody and satire rights in musical expression). Citation would make the legality of music a lot easier to navigate, especially with stuff like sampling and common musical motifs.
@@sagittated still a better way to get paid than to drag it through the courts
Pretty sure at least one of NIN albums was released with a creative commons license. It stood out in my memory, as there was a thank you, please use this music note inside the cd case.
Adam’s advocating for a return to 90’s style big paragraphs of influences in liner notes and I’m here for it.
when will the concert actually start?
I'll be honest; that's a great way to discover new music. The album you really like has citations you can follow to discover new things that already relate to what you like.
It's like, as Adam said, academia, where you can trace an idea you really like to a plethora of others expanding on that idea, or even trace it back to the original source (or as close as you can get).
Imagine how great that would be for smaller artists who get sited on a top 40 song. The listens and publicity sent their way could be transformative not only to their careers but also to their lives.
Say you like a Rammstein song (arbitrary example), you would see artists such as Laibach, Front 242, Wagner, Einstürzende Neubauten, Skinny Puppy, or maybe Front Line Assembly. That's a whole new world of music that is practically tailor-made to your taste.
I'm all for it. I think it's the perfect middle ground. Now, we just have to get the driver of world copyright law, the Disney corporation, (via the US government) on board.
@@yankeelongshoreman9113oh boy! references to industrial music in the wild! yippee! you made my week!
As a ghost writer for several djs, I was once sued by one for accidentally re using a (simple) bassline across 2 different producers tracks.
For decades in the pop/ dance field I had long used the term "monkeys and typewriters" referring to law of infinite probability.
The lawsuit was drawn out and agitated hugely by the suing dj's wife, who flat refused to believe me that there were only 12 notes in music, never mind 7 in a typical song or even less in a house bassline! She just wouldn't accept it, music was still magical to her and she was adamant I had done it consciously / maliciously.
Pfff, are they fckin skunked? I feel for ya bro, I can somehow accept the fact if you reproduced like whole Metallica song note for note or something, but this feels like the next thing they'll sue you for is fuckin 4/4 signature or swing level, every house/ukg producer should stand for our rights and collectively sample that exact fckin song and exact fckin bassline purposely, then what? They gunna sue the whole genre? 😂
@@bradejensen omg it was a mess. you ready?!
Deep breath....
So, not only did the DJ sue, the record label also sued for breach of contract, even though this was a publishing/composition matter their contract was a recording contract that had nothing to do with publishing! go figure.
Both parties were much richer than me and hired lawyer firms that were charging £200 just to send a single email, so that was staking up every day.
Even though I was technically in the right regarding the bassline composition and the record contract, they sued from the Netherlands, so I would have to prove myself in Dutch court,
I am only confident in UK and US copyright law, so I hired the only Dutch law firm I could afford. They advised if I wanted to go to Dutch court it would probably cost £30,000 minimum, and in Dutch court there is no guarantee of recouping legal fees if you win. They also advised that the firm the record label had hired was notoriously aggressive, wealthy and influential, and that we should just settle before it gets REALLY expensive. So, we agreed to settle out of court, as soon as possible before more lawyers letters were sent.
In the end I lost £9.000, I became ill from the stress (never happed to me before) and lost 4 months of music work, because its just impossible to be creative when that is hovering over you and the phone is ringing every 30 mins.
@@Bthelick I'm sorry you had to go through that. Those jackasses knew exactly what they were doing.
@@bradejensen no, i still own the line, the settlement ruled that particular recording was to never be released, until recently where a leak went viral with it on tiktok, someone has stolen it and released it themselves (probably via that original lable I imagine), and I certainly am not going to waste any more time on it lol.
its a 2 bar melody bass line, all within 1 octave, nothing faster than 8th notes, in Locrian.
@@bradejensen yes (well as far as a 2 bar melody can be unique anyway) , it was certainly more a melody line than a static functional part on tonic, with question / answer format with a non static rhythm too. a hook in other words. And it was the central hook of the track too.
A well known local case here in Australia involved Greg Ham of 80s band Men At Work and their famous hit 'Land Down Under' - an innocuous question on a music quiz show in 2010 suggested that the flute line in the intro performed by Ham was taken from a popular children's song 'Kookaburra' that was written in the 1930s - A company who had purchased the rights to that and other similar songs in the 1990s then immediately took Men At Work and EMI to court for copyright, in which they won the case - They recieved 5% of backdated royalties for the song, and sent Greg Ham into a state of depression as he was concerned that his legacy would be known for plagiarism. He died in 2012 to due a suspected heart attack in what was a rather sad end and no doubt the court case would have been a contribution to his death - The company that won the case has had literally zero contribution to the world of music - disgusting result
It's sad that Greg Ham felt that he would be judged harshly about borrowing a riff like that. It was a big hit, made a lot of money and the copyright holder was obviously motivated by the chance to get a cut. The way the case was reported would have influenced how Ham felt he would be viewed, I recall it being framed in terms of plagiarism and rip off rather than just another musician borrowing a riff, something that happens all the time. When I first heard Jeff Beck's Rice Pudding I realised it was the riff Hendrix used to close out In from the Storm, and that Hendrix intended it as a little tribute. There are hundreds of other examples (Sweet Windy City = Deep Purple My Woman from Tokyo), Ham did nothing different to Hendrix here, except that Jimi knew that Beck would appreciate the reference and that was that. However (now that I think of it) Noel Redding was not given a co-writing credit for the opening riff of Ezy Ryder; as a posthumous release no blame attaches to Hendrix, but the music world is full of such stories. Sometimes it's about the money, sometimes just recognition, sometimes nobody cares and they just let it slide.
Ham did not deserve to feel guilt for Down Under/Kookaburra, however another Australian band, the Angels, had a big hit with Am I Ever Gonna See Your Face Again a shameless rip off of Status Quo's Lonely Night, reached a settlement and seem to have escaped much public censure, despite borrowing the entire song and changing the lyrics (at least they were good lyrics).
Greg Ham was one of the examiners for my high school music exam back in the day.
I was really proud to have included some woodwind (tin whistle) in amongst all the guitars and pianos.
So sad that that little quotation, and resultant copyright drama soured his life, and took away his confidence.
I reckon the question writers at Spicks and Specks are being a bit more careful about what kind of trivia they are unveiling.
Greg Ham.... sandwich.
It was also a dodgy scam; the "offending" phrase(s) was barely similar, taking account of rhythm percentage of song involved; it was far from obvious, all western music is 'derivative' unless we dump equal temperament, diatonic scales & chords, 4/4 time etc, just as communal music of Indonesia India and Africa is culturally derivative and expected within their traditions.
Yeah, it's sad that I'm not allowed to steal other people's property.
I got a copyright strike on RUclips for 2 minutes of me playing a C note with no other instruments or rhythms happening
Even if copyright was reduced back to a more sane duration of, say, 20 years - the lifespan of patents in most countries - it'd be a damn sight less creatively stifling than the status quo, despite not being particularly satisfying from a philosophical POV.
Copyright should extend to the life of the author and not further.
@@InXLsisDeo bullshit. That fucking thinking is how we got here. The Constitution of the U.S. gave CLEAR limits. (because it's a fucking contract, the author on one side and the public interest or culture on the other) One 14 Year term with ONE 14 year extension (assuming you filed for it). That was it. It was greed and business interests that increased it. It's been our culture that they have been charging us to enjoy. If you think selling out your culture is ok, maybe you shouldn't have a voice at the table.
(i heard this in ur voice)
@InXLsisDeo Why that long? Copyright is a contract with the community and not a property. You share your idea/invention with the community and get some protection in compensation, but not for life.
@@InXLsisDeo Why? You write a song or book that becomes popular for a while, and then a year or three down the road it's gathering dust while other songs and books become popular. If you want to encourage the creator to create more, a lifetime copyright is too long.
The fact that Blue's Clues uses the I Got Rhythm melody sent me into a nostralgia trance I wasn't expecting today
Blue skadood, we can too!
blue skidoo we can too
It also made me appreciate the music in that show a whole lot more! It's cool enough when a kids' show has a jazz score (as all the best seem to: Charlie Brown, Mister Rogers, Bear in The Big Blue House, etc.) but it's even cooler when they pay homage to/acknowledge the culture like that.
My dad listens to a lot of jazz, and I noticed this as a kid!
omg Blue's Clues xD as for me I couldnt stop thinking of the Mr Plow theme from the Simpsons this entire video lol
I remember humming out a riff one day in my head and I was really excited to pick up guitar and work on it. Not long after I realised it wasn't my own but something I realised was part of a song I had listened to a few weeks earlier. I feel influences are a massive part of music too and have their part to play in this discussion. Someone might involuntarily plagarise or borrow and perhaps sometimes not realise because it just hooked its way into their head and came out while song writing.
Yeah exactly. I once accidentally wrote the chorus to Bulls On Parade. I had it in my head and it felr like an original idea but written out, I realised it was the song. Sometimes it just takes that long to notice your influences. I didn't steal it and I didn't consciously know where the influence came from.
Been there, done that too.
So in that scenario -- how would you be able to cite your source? Well - in this _particular_ case, you realized what the source was once you wrote it down. But what if you hadn’t realized that until after the release? Or what if when you _did_ realize having heard the tune before, you could not remember the artist, the song name, or anything else that you would need to cite it?
While I can understand where Adam’s idea of citing your sources comes from -- due to concerns like those that I just mentioned, I am skeptical that it will really solve anything at all.
@@salty_3k506 yup its hard for me to write music because of this haha i listen to too much music so it always leans into something unoriginal
Average scholar: uses Plato’s theory of forms to explain the idea/expression dichotomy
Adam, a true intellectual: *SANDWICHES*
I was brown away by his ability of somehow not mentioning plato
How the shit did he go for 30 minutes to come to the idea of creative commons licencing...without mentioning creative commons? Take away the most limiting categories and there we go. I guess it's appropriate - coming to the same idea independently and me asking to include the citation. Somehow I can't believe he doesn't know about cc haha.
In fact he uploads on bandcamp, so he would know.
I thought he was about to mention it when he started talking about citations.
Nice! Had a similar quip but this is so much better.
Something something copywrong
25:48 🤔 why are you posting an antisemitic cartoon in this video Adam? You wouldn't use an old Disney cartoon mocking black people so why are you doing to it Jews? I'm unsubscribing
@@xp7575 you watch jj mcullough i've seen you
Ah stop listening to music to write music, only when they turn it on, no no me sick of becoming a fan
@@xp7575 he probably didnt know because thats maybe just some clip that showed on a footage library. most people dont constantly look out for antisemitistic aspect of things.
@@xp7575 cuz they run the world, mockery wouldnt take any millions away from them, idc
I really appreciate the motivation behind your "citing sources" idea, but I have some thoughts: A lot of the time I don't think people who write music really know what their influences are, exactly; that's true for me, anyway, as someone who occassionaly writes music in the Western classical tradition. The influences that musicians take from are so diverse and wide ranging, it's probably impossible to be accurate in citing your musical influences. It might be interesting, though, to see if this requirement would change the way music is written. If it did, would that be "bad?"
@@rockapartie At least Frere Jacques is public domain! :-)
In a citation system you don’t need to mention every influence, only if you are directly paraphrasing somebody else. Like if I write a paper on copyright I don’t need to reference every thinker that has influenced any thought about copyright I ever had, only for the ideas I am mentioning in my paper that were directly inspired by somebody else, like if I base an argument on someone else’s paper I need to reference that.
In a song context I wouldn’t have to cite all my practice books and theory books or every piece of inspiration I had. But if I want to directly use a bass line from some Funk record for a specific song, even if I edited it; I need to reference that.
Even if you could remember everything, doesn't this just amount to another form of gatekeeping where people who don't have an academic background would be at a disadvantage? But also it sounds like very not fun to basically demystify the whole creative process so that the excitement of drawing from multiple sources gets bogged down with "but what if I miss a citation?" I mean, the current system sucks too, but I can't see this system helping my creativity.
@@ffsrsw yeah, and the question is, where would the lines be drawn for how it's legally regulated ? i mean personally i think it would make sense if the lines were drawn in similar places they are now, just for citation instead of literally not being allowed to use it, (but maybe even more lenient????) ? either way i feel like it should be something that comes naturally enough that it doesn't turn music writing into academia (although music-as-academia could have a place as a replacement for useless assignments in music courses which have nothing to do with actually creating music)
@@rockapartiesounds sick. Got a link?
Citation is actually a pretty big piece of certain folk traditions, especially in live performance. It’s expected within certain circles that performers not only explain the history of the piece, but their own history with it: who they learned it from and what version they learned.
Precisely. It's how all cultural production should be approached. In all things we should honor those that came before. It's simply decent and respectful human behavior. Not only with regards to your "elders" but also to your audience, peers, and progeny.
"all belongs to all" (kropotkin 1892) is the only citation to be expected in some other certain circles and their folk traditions involving live performance/protest/striking/etc
get a copy of the little red song book and see for yourself; it is impossible to claim anything is owned by anyone
also, in most folk and non-European art music traditions (in lots of places there's not always a clear line btw the 2) that chain of transmission is important but in addition the assessment (by audience and other musicians) of a player's skill lies in how skillfully and imaginatively proceed to ornament the piece of music--a musician who just plays it straight is a bad musician--so they're expected to ADD TO and 'improve' on their master's work.
@oaktree_ idk who you are but i just fell in love with you a little for bringing up Turkmen traditional music and actually knowing something about it. :D As a fellow ethnomusicologist, i'm thrilled. I have a few articles and books on the turkmen tradition, you would be interested to read the English translation of The Tale of Crazy Harman (Harman Dali) by Slawomira Zeranska-Kominek. She also gives a great commentary on lots of aspects of the tale. There's a lot of that mentor/apprentice going on between the characters in the tale, and iirc Slawomira discusses it in her comments as well.
These circles are called Music Educators
It’s always surprising and upsetting to see how many musicians, artists, designers, and creators are on social media, forums, and other internet communities staunchly enforcing an “anti-piracy” mindset because they believe deeply that copyright law protects them and other artists. In large part, copyright lawsuits and dmca action have become opportunities for supermassive corporate entities to advertise a fable of “protecting the little man” without ever having to show where the money they collect is going. Newsflash, artists: it’s not going to other artists!
Agreed
That's the recording industry in general. Artists, if they get anything other than debt, get crumbs compared to the business side of things.
The only people who will sue for copyright infringement are those who all already have the funds to do so, anyway.
Basically the problem is the big corporations, not the individual artists.
@@ecoRfan It's both. The difference is simply that scales of power tilt toward the well-funded corporation. Copyright can't be just a matter of banned for corporations and acceptable for individual artists. It has to be applied to all or applied to none, there's no room for double standards here.
My Master's Thesis was titled 'A Critique of Musical Copyright as it Relates to the Allocation of Publishing Rights' and I covered a lot of the stuff in this video. Super interesting stuff. The main take away I got while researching and writing my paper is that the current system of musical ownership is simply unsustainable. It was always unsustainable, but considering the rate of musical creation has increased tenfold since the 1990s, it's just a joke at this point. I proposed a few alternative methods to the problem of musical ownership in my thesis. Would be happy to share them.
I'd be interested to read that! Could you share a link to the thesis perhaps?
@@etikkakurkku
I’ll shoot you a message, and either send an email, or a link!
That sounds like an interesting read! Could I have a link to it?
I'd love to see it as well!
Sounds interesting! Could I have a link to it?
Biig Renaissance music and music publishing nerd here (I have an actual PhD on the subject) and I am jumping in the comments (without having watched the whole video 'cause I am too excited) to say that basically, even then, music copyright was basically a biiiig clusterfuck. Publishers of printed music "pirated" each other's books all the time, everybody published official "copyrighted" stuff but also clandestine stuff, and the fancy copyrights you got from the king or your local authorities only worked when said authorities actually bothered enforcing them... Basically, the more things change, the more they stay the same.
That is a very cool thing to study as a PhD.
That sounds really interesting actually, what are some good resources to learn more about this topic?
If ever I were on a jury I’d say, “Bach already wrote all the order of notes that sound good.” Great video, Adam (as always).
I agree, and in the past nobody owned chord progressions. Many composers copied others' chord progressions. Maybe a way round being sued is to copy a J S Bach or non-copyright progression.
"Calvinistically predetermined," Ecclesiastes, and "he who is without sin...." Adam is flexing some theological background here. ❤
Once when he dropped The Calvin reference I knew he brought the big guns!!😄
*Cries in Arminianism*
I don’t believe he is Christian
@@ajh.7
He may not be, but he knows religion (theology isn't a religion, it is a science, the studies of religion)
A lot of wankers on here, your lives will be hard unless you keep living in your bubble
I always love when Father Neely sprinkles some of his musical knowledge into his sermons!
God is good, m8. Music copyright proves it.
what can be said, the Bible is just full of great quotes
Sermon is correct.
I’m pretty sure you have no idea how accurate in the wrong direction your “sermon” comment is.
Fascinating video. As a former lawyer (I consider myself an escapee) and guitar player I struggle with idea that we can judge plagiarism in music from a score. I think 12Tone did a video saying notation is NOT music. We have to listen to it otherwise we are trying to judge a painting by only reading the names of the colours used. One additional thought. Individual rights are supposed to protect the individual from monopoly power (money or swords). This starts with "get off my land" and extends to anything that can be treated as giving value. That requires a means of exploiting that value. But the modern means of exploitation make monopoly almost inevitable. Music is not like language. Copyright may work for novels but not for chord changes and notation will not work at all for much of modern music. To be honest I don't know what the answer is but clearly there is something wrong with the current system.
Well, in case of copyrights, the intent of the whole copyright system is to give this individual the monopoly, not protect from it. :-) I'm beginning to wonder if the copyrights problem doesn't boil to simply statistics and overproduction. Of course the idea of copyrighting only the "worthy" works is tempting but who's to say what is and what isn't worthy? Maybe it's simply - contrary to the common approach pushed by the big companies owning the copyrights - the time to shorten the protection period. If I remember correctly, the Berne Convention ensures that works are protected for at least 50 years (or is it 70?) after the author's death. Compare it to patents which only last for 20 years. And patents often need huge investments to be useful whereas audiovisual art can be distributed and used at effectively almost no cost.
@@SpadajSpadaj As you say the Internet allows distribution at what amounts to zero cost which benefits those who control legal ownership. Here in the UK our legal system started with William the Conqueror imposing one legal system common to the whole nation hence "common law". It was initially focused very heavily on land and the structure was intended to ensure that ownership was clear and could not be usurped through force or fraud. Enforcement of title and performance of feudal duties avoided anyone but the king securing too much power. Any society structured around asset wealth tends towards oligarchical monopolies but the feudal structure limited that effect. Intellectual property ring fences some elements of ownership in a similar way, creating a limited monopoly that is protected (in theory) from those with more wealth and hence more power. Unfortunately the Internet seems to have broken that system because there is no effective means of policing the process. In music we have almost completely shifted from a sales model to a streaming model which has added to the power of the likes of Scooter Braun. Maybe it is time to abandon copyright to dilute that power and live the other problems that such a free for all will create.
@@SpadajSpadaj yes the Berne Convention is a least life of the author plus 50 years. Then according to the Wikipedia "List of countries' copyright lengths" article, many countries have additional "copyright terms based on publication and creation dates" with the United States having "95 years from publication or 120 years from creation, whichever is shorter" for many works. This is the obscene "Mickey Mouse" copyright term extension pushed by Disney scum.
@@Birkguitars Well, for all it's worth, streaming and internet as a whole is both a great way to find something interesting if you're really trying to (without it I'd probably never discovered much of the music I'm listening to today) but on the other hand, for an average not-very-demanding user it's a tool for uniformizing the "taste" and distributing the same product (because it's no longer art) to the mass public. So it has its good and bad sides. There is no equivalent of more ambitious radio programs which you would listen to because there was nothing else on and you could have picked up something completely out of your circle of immediate interests. Now if you listen to something, the algorithm will push you more of the same.
And of course streaming companies pay even less than record companies but that's a well known fact. Which of course hurts the niche artists much more than pop giants.
@@SpadajSpadaj Yes, but I think maybe the point is that the intent to give artists a monopoly on something they create, or any facsimile of it, is a wrongheaded notion from the start, or at least in direct conflict with the fundamental ideas underpinning most of our other laws. There's a lot of classical liberal thought on property that went into designing our current legal systems, but those ideas applied to a concrete notion of property as a real thing that can be possessed exclusively. So for example, a piece of land is a concrete thing I can define for the court with a title or platte of survey. I could own this piece of land and use it as I please, or Adam could own it and use it as he pleases. But we can't both own the same piece of land (unless we're in a partnership together or something). The law can look at something like that and make a definite judgement based on the facts. But if an idea is suddenly property, then it's not concrete or exclusive. Nobody can point to one physical address for an idea, or put an idea in a box, or give us some scientific report detailing all of its measurements and properties, so there's nothing concrete for the law to work with. And it's not exclusive, since any idea that gets put into the world can spread to anyone else, and any two people might "create" the same idea independently.
One way to think about this is: "How could property law work if someone invented a Star Trek replicator?" Say I own a car and someone points their replicator beam at my car and suddenly there are 2 cars that are exactly the same down to the molecular level and indistinguishable. Do I own both cars? My name in on the title in the glovebox of both cars, and they both have the same VIN numbers. Or does the man who replicated it own the copy? He expended the resources and time and effort to make the copy, and owns the capital that allowed him to produce it, and he can claim that I never paid a cent for the second car, so any proof of ownership must be fraudulent. Now consider that we already have Star Trek replicators as far as IP is concerned and this is already the path that treating ideas as property has led the law down.
Even though I have a composition degree, I hardly ever compose and primarily identify as an arranger and keyboardist. The fact that most new compositions already draw so heavily on existing music is an illustration of why arranging is often quite satisfying for me - it's a lot of the same activity, but without the pressure of coming up with original melodies, which was never a strong suit of mine.
Creating original music is great but hearing someone else's take on something already made is also cool. Everyone's got their own artistic style and flavour, which is why I enjoy listening to other peoples interpretations or takes on musical ideas.
The state of copyright lawsuits in the music business always feels like this sickening, atrocious thing happening right in front of me that I can do nothing about. It gives me some solace to see someone like Adam working to inform the public on how this can be better.
It needs to be resolved at the root - with a change of value system, ideology and such.
Do you know how many lawsuits are filed every day that have absolutely nothing to do with music or copyright? Tens of thousands. A free society means it's easy to be a litigious society. If copyright is really what's keeping you awake at night you should consider volunteering at a food bank or something and get your perspective rearranged.
@@In_Set That's a neoliberal version of free society: The freedom to restrict less influential people's freedom.
@@In_Set " A free society means it's easy to be a litigious society."
sounds like a contradiction to me tbh.
@@Dowlphin Oh please. You advocate against copyright, which is a worker protection law.
As a non native speaker, I always felt awkward to pronounce 'rural'. Nice to see a native speaker with the same struggle. XD
Also, amazing video as always!
Same here. I always think that I'm pronouncing it wrong, even though I'm not, hahaha
That's a weird sounding word
E pra nós do Brasil, parece muito mais tranquilo
"Rural Juror".
"LuLaL" is how i say it
In my job I have to say "...do you use" everyday. Gets me tripped up several times a week.
Patentright and copyright have always been more of an evil than a good. For the good aspects there are always a tenfold of collateral damages and stunts in progress.
This is why I will always love ZUN who created Touhou and it's music. This man has never cared for copyright hence why reuse and remix of his music is just immense. This man has been producing music art and games since the 90s. You can find everything on RUclips, I can upload it, do anything with it. Others can make infinite art. He's one of the few that understands.
On the other hand another of my favourite musicians Tame Impala, when I play even a shitty cover on my detuned piano. RUclips will put a "melody claim" on it. I love his music but I aint performing it if I get literally punished for it like that. It's 100% impossible to monetise any Tame Impala musical content no matter how transformative.
The thriving of a fandom, art genres and all of this amazing stuff are directly affected by how stringent the artist is on his copyright. And I remain of the opinion that copyright does more harm than good. Both to the artform itself and the artist.
and the public
Adam's videos need to be used in college classrooms. Clear main idea, effective structuring and flow of points, extensive research, awareness of the audience, relevant topics, creative and original voice...
They are ;) I do show them in college classrooms sometimes and I can't be the only one!
Creative and original voice and well presented. Nothing else. Little or no research. No understanding of the subject matter especially with the song "Lets Get it On". Outrageous idea that songwriters should have their earning power reduced or taken away completely. That is what I read into it. Have I misunderstood the last bit ?
@@MatthieuStepec I hope their is robust debate and challenges, because most of it is complete nonsense !
@@TranquiloTrev I haven't shown this particular video, which is very new. There are always discussions about the material I present, but I definitely wouldn't call this one "nonsense".
Used throughout my whole degree, always got approved 😁
The realization of where I know that melody when you showed blues clues absolutely blew my mind. I grew up with that show. And as a musician today I personally hold the belief that if someone is inspired by my music, they are free to use that inspiration to build off of it or use part of it to create something new. I am by no means famous. Barely popular, if that. But I would feel honored to know someone used my art to create more art.
Until this video, I hadn't made a connection regarding that lick. After Neely pointed it out, I immediately had a few more examples pop into my head.
It's also the chorus of Matilda, a traditional Caribbean song from early the 20th century. Belafonte sang a version in the 50s
I've been writing music for 35 years and this video blew me away. Such an honest and interesting take on what music really is from a compositional perspective. Thanks Adam, you rock! 😄
I once got a copyright claim from a company claiming to own the composition rights to Dvorak, who died in 1904. Someday I'll release my cello metal arrangement of Dvorak.
I want to hear that @Windfarms With Wifi
I got a content claim for the use of the melody in my video of a flute sonata with harpsichord accompaniment composed by the French baroque composer Michel Blavet. The sheet music is available on IMSLP both in facsimile and modern scores copied by volunteers.
@@stitch3163 It's going to take a lot of practice, haha, but maybe I'll have time to practice enough this year. It's my most difficult arrangement. It's mostly based on Dvorak's 7th symphony 3rd mov't, but instead of having interplay between 6/4 and 3/2, it has interplay between 7/8 and 5/4.
@@ukeanfluteI got a cr claim on a piece that was written in the early 19th century... that was fun
My favorite example of how I feel like it should be, is somebody asked The Strokes where they got the idea for the riff in "Last nite". And Julian Casablancas said "You know that song american girl by tom petty? Yeah we stole that riff"
And nobody was mad because the way in which it was used was unique, and it was a clear inspirational moment to make a completely new song
Steve Jones from The Sex Pistols also openly admitted to stealing from ABBA in Pretty Vacant, nobody was mad. Least of all ABBA
The segment on sandwiches and music creation blew my mind. For one, because when you said that most people only have a daily, intimate relationship with consuming music rather than creating it ... I've assumed that everyone goes through their day, singing and composing their own backtracks to their lives. And then when you mentioned mysticism around production ... such mysticism doesn't exist for me with music, but it DOES exist with food production 😵💫. To me, of COURSE you can't own a musical idea - that's as silly as claiming copyright over English grammar. Yet it was unexpected to hear that most recipes cannot be copyrighted. What a spectacular analogy.
The ascending riff Monk used in Rhythm-Na-Ning also appears in Pokemon's "Follow Me" music as well as St. Vincent's "Pills"
I was thinking about Pokemon's version! Its a little different in it's melody, but clearly a similar idea. Good song!
Yeah! Pokémon was the first thing I thought of.
I think the citation idea is brilliant. It may even lend a new sense of seriousness to modern music. And let's keep in mind, this is already a common practice in hip hop music because of sampling. If we consider the gangster rap of the early 90s, Dr Dre borrowed heavily from Parliament funkadelic and did not shy away from giving them credit. The result was a lot of kids who are into Dr dre, Snoop Dogg and others eventually learn about George Clinton and '70s funk. Everybody won.
Yes, so much yes on that. I hope that citations thing takes off as a good chunk of artists start doing it. Would be cool to see what inspired music I enjoy, without going on extensive research sprees.
They only work when the quoting/sampling is done consciously. If you hear a melody in the background at the supermarket and later go home and "write" the same melody, you may not have a clue that you actually ripped someone off.
Except those of use who had to listen to (c)rap
@@akmadsen Yep, and this is why composition copyright is BS; originality is just a faliure to cite your sources.
But what happens when you don’t know you made a piece of music, melody or chord progression that resembles that of someone else? You just wouldn’t know you had to make a citation. We cannot and do not know all music. Wouldn’t this undermine the idea of using citation?
Hearing the Thelonius over and over made me think of, "He's making a list, checking it twice, going to find out who is naughty and nice." Not 1 for 1, but my brain connected the two. Return idea to sender. What's sad about the music litigation is that it isn't about music, but has a large impact on people who make and sell it.
This is my favorite video you’ve ever made. You put so many things I’ve been thinking about it into clear, accessible, and well-researched terms. The sandwich analogy (and the note about the mysticism of musicmaking) is super appropriate, as is your citation proposal. Thank you.
As a young music student, I think it's important to realize that we shouldn't let the fear of being unoriginal stop us from trying to compose. I know of loads of people who have said, "I try composing things, but then I realize that it's just a popular song that I've heard before." Of course it is. That's how the composing process starts. very few small ideas are original, but how we develop them will always be at least a little bit unique to us. At the very least, we will learn a bit about the structure of the music we've heard before which was memorable enough to stick in our brains and come out in our composing.
Yes, there are also different ways of looking at conventions and clichés in different styels. Some think it's just grey and uninteresting while others like me tend to look at it as a langague wth an inherited vocabulary and grammar.
Insightful thoughts. Listening to a wide variety of styles and artists, grabbing snippets, concepts, ideas, and inspiration from all over, throw them in your meat computer, and see what you create as a result.
As one trying to learn music composition on my own time, I needed to hear this. Thank you.
Well, no. At least for me, if I'm composing and at some point realize a great similarity to something previosuly written I scarp the composition.
I think that it's a bit problematic to propose that composers should quote where they got their ideas from. Because though some composers and songs are really inspired in something they heard, sometimes something may be composed out of no clear reference. And even if the composition is actually very similar to some compositions from the past, sometimes who composed later never heard that song or heard and didn't even remember. As you said in the video, there are some very common ideias to play in instruments like the guitar. So it might be easy that someone can't quote where the exact idea came from, also because only a few people who compose are musical researchers, or people with a wide repertoire and musical theory knowledge. Thus, I think the system you propose might be problematic in many cases. Maybe not, but I think it's worth to think about that too
... No? Sometimes if you'll will eventually create something that sounds like another person's work. When it comes to copyright, I see music shouldn't be subject to it on the compositional side at all, but only lyrics.
I think another problem with the citation proposal is that it frames music creation in a very specific way: that it’s the act of carefully compiling and soldering together bits of work from a handful of other artists, then making a product out of it. I think this trivializes the spontaneity and inspiration that goes into a lot of creative work, and makes it “serious” in the same way academia is. For most people, this just isn’t how they make music, nor how they would WANT to. Idk, I like the sentiment, but this feels like it would change what the process of making art fundamentally IS.
@@birdwatching_u_back I mean like blatant copying of lyrics or 50 vs. just a sampled. Though sampled stuff I view shouldn't be subjected to copyright as the context is SO DIFFERENT from original on average.
@@birdwatching_u_back I concur. Soldering is for mic leads, not melody!
whether you want to or not, how you make music is directly influenced by the music you have heard, which is why some composers isolate themselves from other's music for lengthy periods of time to try to minimize external influences. i would argue that making music is already in this format, although we may not know who exactly to cite, we are in fact borrowing from musicians that came before us
I like your idea about the citation system, but I feel like it’s just different. Artists are always influenced by others, but, unlike academics, aren’t going around citing their work. The few songs I’ve written were likely influenced by *many* artists, but I can’t directly trace that influence. I don’t know where it came from. It just sounded good. And I don’t have the knowledge or skill to parse the chord progressions in the music I listen to.
Someone's never looked at the credits on a song they're listening to...
@@harrisonlingren There ARE no visible credits on Spotify...
I think this could be done retroactively: If an artist feel that he/she influenced your piece can just ask for recognition. Someone could be in charge to check if this is true or not. In general I think it's a good idea, but of course it could take a while to flesh out all the details and implement it the best.
Better yet, I think this could and should be done in other fields. I have been watching some stuff about novels and there are similar issues to distinguish between ideas, tropes and the fact that some concept are known to work best, therefore their usage is become common and their ownership is a problem.
The same applies to academics - as a philosopher I can't tell you to what degree, say, my knowledge of Kant may have influenced my intuitions regarding bodily autonomy. We only cite when we *know* we're using someone else's work for a conscious purpose. And for someone to establish plagiarism, they'd have to prove I consciously used their work without citation as well.
I think the citation idea is more about protecting artists in cases like the Sheeran-Gaye case. Some artists might be 'scared' to admit they borrowed directly from someone else because it can cause financial and reputational damage. If, however, you could simply cite an artist you got borrowed from, you'd not be worried about being sued for doing so and could more openly talk about your influences. In fact I reckon that's why a lot of artists don't openly talk about who influences them. They know they're borrowing ideas from all across the industry (and that's ok), but admitting to such could get them in legal trouble.
I think you just independently conceptualized Creative Commons. It currently has about as much legal authority as open source software licenses, insofar as they're not codified into law, but this exists. I would absolutely love seeing a later follow-up video exploring and shedding a brand new light on Creative Commons from your musical perspective!
Gonna only remix Kevin MacLeod from now on
Yes, Adam Neely's "cite your sources" proposal is mandated by the Creative Commons By Attribution License (CC-BY): as long you give Kevin McLeod credit his music is free for you to use.
His site incompetech seems to provide mp3s, not MIDI or sheet music; releasing the performance under a Creative Commons license might imply that the composition can be derived from the performance and the same license applies to it; people have uploaded scores for their arrangements of his songs to MuseScore. But I Am Not A Lawyer.
A problem with this and Adam Neely's suggestion is you building off someone else's song that's CC licensed and/or citing it may not help if someone with money and lawyers sues claiming that your source in turn rips off their song. But I ANAL.
Adam Neely should make another video on alternative licenses and music.
Creative Commons licenses (and open source software licenses) get their power/function by letting you do things that copyright wouldn't by default. You agree to those license terms as soon as you do something that only those terms let you do, and thus assume the corresponding responsibilities.
@@columbus8myhw I think you might have just invented a new genre right there.
@@vigilantcosmicpenguin8721 Let's call it common core
7:04 It was at this moment that I not only sustained major psychic damage but also realized "wow I really was basically shown jazz musical concepts that are comforting at a really early age"
Oh yeah, that's been part of children's TV for a while, using jazz musical principles. Heck, Sesame Street back in the 70s and 80s would just go full-on... well, just check out the time signature here: ruclips.net/video/GksEo8EDXiE/видео.html
blues clues is actually the first thing i thought of when i heard the riff at the beginning haha. that and “pills” by st. vincent.
@@fluffskunkthat was the single most 1970s’ clip I have ever seen. Amazing
I personally found it healing to revisit this little jingle as the video progressively got more and more ridiculous with explaining how ridiculously musical copyright is enforced. The psychic damage for me will come later when I can't stop singing this for about two days.
Thanks for Your elaborations, Adam! There's one problem I see with Your proposed citation based system: When composing, I have very ofted found ideas, that I had to realize were not my own. Given the vastness of the world of music, it would be almost impossible to find the source of an idea, if it isn't being chosen consciously.
I try to not "steal" ideas, but if I find a melodic motive and can't find it in the music I remember having heard before, I claim it as my own. The apple on the roadside tree, so to speak.
I think this is a good point but no different from the current situation as it relates to the sure knowledge/statistical inevitability of producing something already tried. Whereas now this might be resolved in the courts it could rather be resolved by adding a citation at a later date or perhaps allowing open source edits to citations?
I guess people would also knowingly refuse to cite. This would likely be called out if the music was in any way popular enough to provide some living and result in loss of kudos to the artist and in effect become a citation in itself.
I'm sure this doesn't answer all points/objections but it sure is interesting to think through!
🙂
Every so often, I will listen to a song from my teens and find a melody I must have stolen!
They have an algorithm for that.
This happens in scientific research too. Sometimes you have an idea and later find out that it's already been done. Usually a colleague points it out to you, and you simply correct your manuscript and add the correct citation. It's not a big deal.
Yes this is a problem. You could reference the literature though. “This harmonic idea I took from this old textbook on harmonic analysis”, “this chord change I read about in this guitar book”
While I think the citational system you propose is a very interesting thought experiment, I feel like there would probably be some major problems if it were actually put into place.
For cover songs, or sample-heavy music, it might work well enough since the provenance of the cited work is pretty clear. But I'm not sure it would always be so straightforward to identify 'prior art' for most compositions that are seemingly new. There have been times where I've revisited songs that I wrote after several years and realized, 'hey, that riff is sort of like the riff from song X that I've listened to a lot'. Likely this is no coincidence; I heard song X and subconsciously added its performance techniques, its chords, its melodic ideas to my repertoire, and later on when writing music these ideas resurfaced. The problem is, had you asked me right after I wrote it, I may well have failed to realize where these ideas were coming from.
In other words, a citational system puts an additional burden on the composers of new music. Perhaps at times there is an obvious answer to how the cite one's sources, but I can imagine that especially for complex music written by a person who has extensive, eclectic tastes, it would take a lot of time to go through the possible sources of musical influence to ensure they were not leaving anything out. And insofar as time is a resource, one which is often interchangeable with money, such a system gives a distinct advantage to artists with money - those with the backing of a major record label, or new artists who have existing wealth. Less popular, less wealthy artists are at risk of failing to meet the requirements of this kind of system.
There are other problems too. What if I wrote a song substantially similar to song X, but in fact I had never heard song X? It's possible for multiple musicians to stumble upon the same idea independently. Does the prior art get credit in this circumstance? If so, does everybody now need to cite Riehl and Rubin in every seemingly 'new' melody? And if not, how can we prove whether an artist heard some apparent music influence?
Yes, this citation idea falls into the same trap as the whole IP framework, namely the confusion of conventional techniques with _ideas,_ whatever those are supposed to be. That is the main problem with those high-profile suits like the Marvin Gaye business or the endless round of medium fish suing big fish either because they have misunderstood their own creative process or are cynically hoping for a settlement (Andrew Lloyd Weber and Led Zeppelin lawsuits are the most well-known of these, probably.) When it is said that the use of the progression I-I6-IV-V is an infringement of someone's intellectual property rights, that is _strictly analogous_ to saying that, say, if someone writes the lyrics to a song in English and then you do, you may potentially be infringing their property rights because every sentence in your song begins with with a subject, has a verb in the middle, and ends with a noun governed by the verb, just like the previously written song.
There was mention that publishing companies handle this responsibility which alleviate the artists need to do it. I had the same thoughts as you until Adam suggested that as well. The idea is not that the music is copyrighted, or can be copyrighted. The idea is that they potentially "inspired" the idea. As you have just pointed out, there are caveats but unless an idea is proposed and the caveats worked through, we going to be stuck with this copyright issue. The end result of these discussion might be something completely different to the citation idea but had it not been for the citation idea, the discussions would never have been had. You can cite me on that LOL
Maybe given the technology that we have today, let some kind of AI based service figure out the citations.
As mentioned, often even producers and composers don't know the true origin of a musical idea, or maybe they tough the idea was original when in fact they cited something subliminally.
since it's unreasonable for a composer to do such extensive amout of reaserch before every song is released, let AI figure it and tell you what prior songs used the same musical ideas
What you classify as "problems" with the requirement of citations for music composers, your critique only presents issues or challenges for consideration, with no clear idea that invalidates the idea. The idea of "clearance" by this same requirement of citing prior art runs across all fields of law regarding property. - Clearing Titles/Deeds in Real Estate, Clearing EVERY SINGLE purchase/sale of Stocks/Bonds/Securities, and the "implied warranty" of all products and sales of services - the seller implies s/he have legitimate rights (ownership or license, by title or verification of Public Domain) of property/service being sold/transferred.
Adam's idea of prior art citation requirement would bring the unruly traditions of COMMERCIAL music (performance and composition and recording) more in line the mature practices of commercial invention (Patents/Trademarks). A timely idea and suggestion in the era beyond MFPS (MegaFlopsPerSecond) circuits and Google digitization of as many archives and libraries as it can get to, as well as Gates'/Corbis' run at same indexing of fine art/museum/curated collections of historic note (commercial value) around world.
Distinct legal categories of music composition/performance/recording may develop in legal and commercial practice, just as licenses to drive on public roads and highways have categories, dsignating levels of rights and responsibilities, from private citizen, to Commercial Truck driver, and other levels.
Thanks for chiming in with your ideas, and imaging some edge-cases, though in no way invalidating the value and likelihood of Adam's idea already in the works - at least in the minds of Gates, Pandora, ASCAP, and the entire commercial insurance industry, as well as those in IP law.
@@kennethhughmusic Putting the burden on publishing companies is just kicking the can down the road. Publishing companies will not work for free, and likely artists will need to pay up front, or, as long as money results from citation itself (as Adam suggests royalties be paid to cited artists), a cut of these royalties. In either case, it seems like the system would promote those who are already rich or successful. Perhaps it might still be a better system than what we have now but a lot of the core problems would still exist.
You’re amazing - thank you so much from a School Band teacher who taught in 50 schools on 5 continents. You’re 100% correct and 0% wrong. Cheers!
Suddenly the Psychostick song "This is Not a Song, It's a Sandwich!" makes perfect sense. Thank you, Adam.
This is the best comment ever. Thank you
I forgot about psychostick
Laughed out loud at “this is a good Christian video” 😂
Excellent video Adam. These long form video essays are some of your best work. This topic is only going to continue to keep becoming more relevant so I’m happy you took it on in depth
Got a kick out of that. I think it's also cool to use the Bible to point out capitalist legal and economic nonsense, since many have tried to use God and scripture to reinforce those institutions in the west.
ChatGPT just made this video even more relevant. How does copyright/licensing work when the author is an AI built by a private company that takes a user’s unique prompt and uses a data set of others’ copyrighted work to generate something new?
It's already been determined by the Supreme Court that an A.I.'s work cannot be copyrighted, as the definition of art is, "the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination." The key word there is HUMAN.
very profitable, that`s for sure
This is THE Joseph Campbell comparative mythology take on copyright. So well researched. Thank you for doing this.
An excellent analogy! 👍
Holy crap the entire intro I knew that lick was sooo familiar to me. Of course it's Blue's Clues I almost spit my coffee
I'm glad I checked the comments before I said anything, cause the first time the video played the riff I was ready to say "That's totally the Blue skidoo song." Thanks for the inadvertent warning that Adam also noticed.
I scrolled down way too far to find this. All I could hear was "Blue's Skidoo, WE CAN TOO!!!"
It feels like you just ctrl-F melodies/chord progressions and find instances of them being used across all genres and time periods. I'm so impressed by the depth of your research!
22:38 That is a very bold assumption indeed. After all many people who watch this channel are also musicians.
Also a really excellent video. Thank you.
Starving artist
@@MMfish_ "let them eat copyright symbols" - Marie Antoinette and big tech music streaming services. Have a few bites ©©©©©©©©©© ®®® ©©©©©©©, yum.
I thought about how to 'solve' intellectual property quite a lot before and also arrived on a citational system, but you worded it a lot better than I did
I spent a significant amount of time pausing this video, so I could write my own thoughts on this topic...only to ultimately delete them all because you hit every point I wanted to make.
Nicely done! The odd thing is that, as an artist who will likely never achieve fame or fortune, I actually love the idea that somebody will hear my music and love it enough to be _influenced._
Oh Adam Adam thank you for this. I'm currently doing my dissertation on sampling in music and the devastating effects that copyright law has had on the culture, and this is beautiful summation of the history of music as intellectual property.
May I add the real sinister aspect of musical copyright law, recorded sound, has taken this exploitation to an even higher level. Technology is currently in the works for major labels to add an inaudible 'tag' built into the metadata of any audio that would be automatically identifiable if even a NANOSECOND is used in a piece. If used in a belligerent fashion....it could give major labels an absolute authority over sampling in music in its entirety......
Charlie, yes. I wanted to jump in. I am asking my jazz improvisation class. And I'm also in the ,midst of a dissertation, in my case about Sun Ra and the idea of jazz combined with valued, personal mythologies. CH, write me anytime if we overlap. Probably not I suppose, but who knows.
The explicit premise of sampling is to take the creation of others to claim it as your own. That's slimy
@@alsamuef I do respect your passion but things are not quite so simple. For example if I do art that makes me rich and it features the color blue, that does not mean that I can then copyright the color blue. In addition you have tossed out of hand the idea of a derivative work which is very much part of democracy, for example free speech. Otherwise all comedians go to jail. Every comedian riffs on what they see. Music actually does include satire, comedy, parody, irony, take offs-- all done with good intent. Well, unless you wish to say that all art and all comedy is slimy. Also, too, most all of academics since that blatantly not only quote stuff but have the audacity or advanced slimy to say that they quoting and where they are quoting from. So comedy, all colleges, and music... gone. Okay. :) All meant respectfully. Maybe parenting is slimy, haha. Kids liking their parents and carrying on some of their work in life. Noooooo.
@@artistwintersong7343 Sampling is not creating original music. It is taking someone else's original work to claim as your own. If You "sample" in a college paper you will be flunked for plagiarism. If you sample in written work, either without citation or to an excessive degree you get sued. There is a very limited degree of sampling in visual art through collage but in most cases if you copy someone's original piece of visual art you can be sued for copyright violations. Why should music be different?
Charlie Hill, this isn't complicated. If something isn't yours, you cannot take it. What don't you understand about that ?
Music/philosophy/economics, three of my fave things to think about. This is a brilliant thought-provoking and well-researched essay. It's really good and I like the concept of citation sans ownership.
Throughout the vid I was thinking of the egregious example of jimmy Page copying the way Bert Jansch played Blackwaterside, itself a traditional (I think) tune. I think Bert would have liked a citation, a nod to his creative labour, people could have discovered his recordings and Page could just have feel better about himself.
Great performance. If you're referring to the descending string of notes after each chord, It sounds like some Led Zeppelin song parts, but which ones specifically? Is it really novel to Bert Jansch?
Steve Hackett should have applied for a design patent on his guitar tapping, and lived off licensing fees from Eddie Van Halen 😉.
@@skierpage These things will always be contested but I just now searched and found an informative blog post on the Jansch Blackwaterside arrangement vs Led Zep's Black Mountain Side on a website called turnmeondeadman. It's a discursive look at the details of the 'controversy'/song history.
The similarity is striking and I think Jimmy Page really should have seen Bert's arrangement acknowledged on the record (and quite possibly wishes it had been for all the times some no mark like me brings it up!)
I've recently learned a Tim Lerch arrangement of the old standard Manha de Carnaval and can play it quite well but even though I already play it slightly different in places and as time goes on will no doubt add further deviations and digressions there's no way I could look someone in the eye and call it mine.
I mean, you call Jimmy Page egregious for not citing Bert Jansch, but might I ask if Bert Jansch openly cited who he copied/who influenced him to play it that way? The entire centuries-long history of folk music is people learning songs from one another (ergo no paper trail) up until 20th century musicians cashed in centuries of musical development for themselves under the false pretence of them somehow being more 'original' than later artists who did the same thing but then got screwed over by the greed of their forebears; now there's a paper trail, the lawyers can get involved.
It's little wonder people complain about modern pop being so samey when anything even remotely interesting risks exposing you to a lawsuit from songs you never heard but could get sued for because they have over 1mil plays on RUclips/spotify/soundcloud or was on the charts 50 years ago so you 'might' have heard it. Sticking to copying public domain songs like pachabel's cannon or some variation of the classic Am F C G chord progression is one of the only ways you can be certain you won't loose a court case.
Everyone stands on the shoulders of giants; 'originality' is just a faliure to cite your sources and that's why composition copyrights are BS.
@@Neion8 Bert credited his version of Blackwaterside to Trad, arr Jansch whereas Page credited his Black Mountain Side to Page.
Although LZ's Black Mountain Side stands as piece of art on it's own and adds some sitar or sitar-like effects and while collage and changed contexts are valid artistically the guitar part is clearly Bert's innovative arrangement and was known as Bert's at the time. Jimmy learned it from someone but credited the work to himself.
I've learned to play some of Bert's songs and arrangements myself back in the day, almost note for note, and whilst I would happily nick some ideas and techniques for my own tunes without crediting, I wouldn't dream of changing a title of a Bert song, play it like Bert, maybe add a cello and then claim it as my own without giving due credit.
I essentially think that what Adam says in this video is a good way to go with musical ideas or sounds not being owned but citations given when artistic labour is lifted. It's the cool thing to do.
Having said all that I must admit Led Zep are a particular bugbear of mine, I just don't like them, their haircuts or their plodding sound
😉
I put this video on as some "noise" while I ate the sandwich I just made. This video hit me in so many ways that I didn't expect lol. I have such an odd relationship with originality and quoting in music. As a kid, I used to go out of my may to not learn guitar licks because I felt I was not improvising if I was stringing them together. It had to be me and the 12 notes and nothing more. In hindsight I can now see how a nobody in the music industry like myself could have been so passionate about following copyright laws very strictly. I suppose as a kid I never really thought about large firms buying up music publishing and fishing for infringement cases. I think this is one of the best copyright youtube videos I've watched. I've seen quite a few from lawyers, musicians and streamers but none of them make you think much. Also having a love for science, I feel almost embarrassed that I have never thought of the concept of citation in music creation. I've enjoyed other videos by Adam more (ie. favorite interval...still kills me. I just checked) but somehow he made this video about copyright (and sandwiches) that hit me hard intellectually and emotionally...well played, sir.
This is honestly one of your most thoughtful videos ever. Great work!
Made me smile seeing you mention Eliminate. The guy is a beast at sound manipulation and production!
What a totally excellent analysis! This is something I've been thinking about for many years and it's amazing to see Adam explain this with so much pedagogy behind it- must have had great mentors and role models! Great video!
A lot of things about Adam's videos are amazing but one thing that always boggles me is how he manages to stich so cleanly different cuts, with his speech in perfect continuity, when the two sections in question were obviously shot not only in different locations but different days and different setups lol. I wonder if he watches the last bit of video before starting to record the next bit so he can continue the line exactly where he'd stopped.
I imagine his musical expertise must have some skill transfer. It's all about just hearing what sounds good.
after 15 years you get a pretty good idea of how it's gonna come out. no less impressive though
I would say a big part of it is done before the recording begins: a clearly detailed script pointing to the exact cuts etc.
Also he definitely ( I mean, it's very likely) has presets for EQing and editing sound recorded in different places (like, "Studio Audio Main Mic", "Subway Audio Phone Mic" and things like that)
God bless you, dude. This is the role of the public intellectual: explaining the deep silliness of the assumptions underlying musical copyright decisions from an informed perspective.
A bit of a pushback--the idea of citation as a way to give credit is going to be more comfortable to a musician with your background. Musicians outside the academic system may likely be less able to articulate what their influences are, although it isn't like every high school deathcore band invented all their ideas. (A researcher could investigate where these musical ideas came from, but I don't think that intellectual work has been done, and maybe it won't ever be; people can only know so many things.)
I've been following your youTube presentations for several years now, and this is one of the best (so far). Having been a faithful watcher, I would like to point out the significant improvement in your standard of living (the background stuff). It's nice to see that a practicing musician can make a decent living at their art (craft, whatever). It's also wonderful that you have kept the (literally) 'found art' on the wall, which, I might add is pretty cool.
26:51 note: you can contribute to creating such a culture of sharing by licensing your work under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license. Under that copyright license, anyone who uses your music must a) cite you and b) give others the same freedoms you gave them, with their own music.
The law could address a citation system individually similar to copyright. You'd just be able to sue anyone who doesn't cite you for some amount of statutory and/or actual damages. This is how Creative Commons and other free cultural licenses function, and they seem to function well, so I don't see why not. Perhaps enforcement could be delegated to larger organizations. I believe copyright should subsist for commercial usage (but only for like 10 years or so), so maybe such organizations would have a commercial incentive.
I think not enough attention is paid to individual copying, since I think the utilitarian argument for copyright rests on the necessity of authors and musicians to produce works. As you mentioned, there is a special "class" of people who produce books and music, and copyright is designed to encourage that class to exist and continue functioning smoothly. However, the only purpose of the existence of such a class would be for enjoyment, and ultimately, it's the consumer class that does this. Therefore, to ensure this "transactional" process goes the way it should, consumers _also deserve rights._ It's currently the case that consumers aren't allowed to share an MP3 file with friends or peers, and I think a culture of sharing would be much more valuable. (Note that this also helps smaller authors who might not otherwise be able to access certain music.)
I started using that exact license for my work several years ago, specifically for the reason you give.
You will find it is almost always laws for thee, but not for me with some people.
It's just leverage and grandstanding for them.
They cry "not fair" as they themselves "cheat".
So the last point, which is - this copyright thing limiting your creativity in studio - is so depressing and discouraging. I felt it so much while using samples in my own work. So many songs are now collecting dust in "cool but i'm afraid" folder on my harddrive. And everytime, even if i know, that thing i used is practically unrecognisable, and it have almost nothing to do with the original, sample is so short, so flipped and processed beyond any recognition - it still creeps in my mind time to time, that it is somehow copyright "protected". Yeah I know that nobody gives a damn about some noname nobody artist in some 3'rd world country, but this thoughts anyway appear time to time in my head for many years. And for some time recently, as this points about copyright started and continue to rise, and this situation is talked about more and more I decided something important for myself.
All this big tech companies, huge lawyers, dehumanising corporations, total control of people's lives and thoughts, freedom of speech and freedom of movement. They just monetize and take control of our freedom of expression. And I decided at least for myself, that I've had enough. From this time i will do whatever i want with whatever i have. I will not steal someone's work and call it mine, as it was never my intent. I don't give a damn about copyright laws, because they as of right now are completely stupid and make no sence. And if this corporate dogs would try to take my work down and bring me to court - just they try. I will fight till the end, and will not hand myself out to them alive. Let this be the precedent.
Your knowledge of jazz and music history overall is very impressive!
Good video. One thing that I felt was missing is that of the recognition of the work done and resources expended to make a particular expression valuable enough to be cited in the first place. While Ed (whom Ive’d work with) and Marvin (whom I haven’t) both used the same playbook in terms of the particular chord progression. Marvin and his estate have done a considerable amount more in terms effort in promoting and performing that riff. The most popular version wins I’d say. But I’m just theorizing on the credibility of labor (all the labor outside of just (re)playing the riff!) that is involved in taking a record to market especially in the days of Marvin vs today. Maybe a nothing burger but that stands out to me mostly because of its absence. Anyways…will be “citing” this video for my class…keep up the good work! 🤘🏾
Lupe, If I understand you correctly, you are 100% correct. I think you could have been clearer in the point you were making. Why did Sheeran choose the "Lets get it on" baseline to "copy". Because it was one of the great baselines played by one of the great bass players. Who was also one of the great musicians of his generation. As such it is of great value. Neely doesn't seem to understand this. Or, he is just plain lying. He talks about this baseline as if he or anyone else could have done it. He is 100% WRONG. Anyone who cannot see this shouldn't even be in the music business. Judging by the responses here, It seems like a whole generation, his generation, cannot see it either. It is either sad or pathetic. I don't know which.
I'm working on understanding the relevance of the aspect you point out.
I wouldn't have even noticed your name 😯 if this rather unpleasant fellow above hadn't repeated it. His trollish vitriol defused any impatience I might've held regarding _your_ analysis. 😅
@@crnkmnky Yet you ignore the vitriol of Neely when he says the judge in the case was 95 years old. The judge is not 95 years old. It is his way insulting an older person [ageism] who is much more qualified and much wiser than him. BTW I have given a full analysis behind my opinion you have given nothing.
I largely agree on most things you said in this video. The one exception is your idea that a songwriter should cite their inspirations/sources. It works in academics, because you can make a statement and find a past academic who said that before and quote them. However, implementing this in music would be immensely complicated. Less experienced and young songwriters might not fully understand their influences, but they can still go viral thanks to the internet, like TikTok. Then they'd get into legal trouble because they didn't clearly say where the ideas came from, because they themselves might not even be sure. Or someone might be making music and not have their sound figured out yet... realistically some might start thinking of their influences, but others might just write what sounds good to them without knowing why. And what about subconscious influences? What if I heard a song as a six-year-old that I have long forgotten about, that subconsciously influenced melodies I gravitate towards? Would I need to write the Teletubbies, The Wiggles, Hi 5, Hungarian folk music I heard growing up, and the alphabet song down every time I make a song that miiiight have been influenced by these things? Additionally, due to the death of the CD and the dominance of music streaming, the average person's musical influence is significantly more diverse than ever before. Most people don't just listen to one genre anymore, which has inspired creatives to make countless new subgenres with their own micro-niche. It's entirely possible for someone to make music that perfectly fits the description of a hyper-specific subgenre and not know the name of it, or the fact that there's more music out there just like it. It's the same problem as with the current copyright system, people can easily come up with the same or a similar idea independently, or in a way that is directly influenced but unintentional because it's subconscious.
This isn't to say that this idea of citing your inspirations is impossible to implement, but to make this idea work it would need to be very well thought-out for these sort of situations. Especially in the ever-changing digital landscape where information is instant and culture and society can be drastically different from one year to another. A law change like this would need to be future-proof in the same way the current laws are not
It‘s not as clear cut in academics either. Sure, you need to find a source to cite if you want to put a piece of information in your paper but oftentimes you just know something. Then the challenge is finding an article or some shit where it‘s written and you can cite that. Also to what degree do I have to cite? If I say the sky is blue, do i need a citation for that? what about general knowledge (like what a ham sandwich is)? It‘s also interesting when you need to put something in your paper but you don‘t have enough expertise to actually word it yourself. And it‘s just one line, so what can you do but basically copy that line from wikipedia. Is that plagiarism now? Sometimes you can‘t really word it any other way because the wording is so important.
I suppose citation in music would be similar. Some references are intentional, some obvious and some you‘d need to bullshit through. In the case of broader ideas it wouldn‘t really matter which song you cite, as long as you cite one that uses that riff.
I'd argue the biggest problem is trying to own ideas _at all._ Because how do you determine how much of a thought is "yours", really? And how do you monetize that?
The way things are now, it's the type of thought you own that determines what you get. Like, a mathematical proof that solves an unsolved problem gets you a one-time prize (if anything) but a patent that makes use of that proof gets you a 20 year monopoly? And if you write a story about it, then you get royalties for your entire life + 70 years?? It's all so stupid.
"Minor Swing" by Djano Reinhardt for a nice, minor inflected, french cafe flavored "I Got Rhythm" melody. (also, labor theory of value ftw)
I kept screaming "MINOR SWIIIING" every time he gave an example
Im glad I’m not the only one with a cool guitar teacher
I am ALWAYS looking forward to your video essays. They are really well-done, highly educational and I learn a lot about theory and music in general. A big thank you! 🙌🏻
Adam, this is simply STUNNING. You keep outdoing yourself. And that's not easy considering the level of these pieces. Massive thanks!!!
I loved this video, and although I agree copyright laws are out of touch I don't think a citation mandate would be all that great. When I write music, I don't do research first. I just create based on instinct along with my accumulated knowledge and abilities. I may play something I've heard before, but who knows where it came from? I think copyright is obsolete and should be limited to lyrical content and the recording itself. Chord progressions and beats should just be considered tradition, shared knowledge. If you are writing original blues music then you are already very limited by the traditions of the form (beats and 12 bar chord progressions) . The only parts that may be considered original are your lyrical choices and whatever personal style you bring to the party. I think it's great to list your influences (in general) but to be obligated to do so for every piece you write would be a nightmare. This is a very thought provoking video. Thanks, Adam.
I agree
The only possible shortcoming of a citation system may be subconscious influences. An artist may have an idea for a melody, thinking they came up with it, not realizing it’s from a game soundtrack they heard a year ago - or even another artist that this artist admires and actively listens to.
absolutely well said and thank you for making this. I hope this video is cited in courts and used to throw out baseless copyright infringement cases.
This is so good. Thanks Adam for shining so much light on this. As a producer I've had hundreds of conversations about this with musicians and listeners only to realize that A) none of it really makes sense to me (and that's why it's so damn hard to learn) B) when I finally grasp any of the systems that govern the musical copyright, I usually heavily disagree with it on a moral plane.
Keep on doing the hard work!
Off topic but the bass playing on Marvin Gaye's "Let's get it on" is killer man.. Winton Felder is such a killer musician.
I feel like the proposed citation system wouldn't work for a number of reasons. Unlike when writing an academic paper, there's a large part of the process that happens subconsciously, both when consuming music as well as when writing. It would be by definition impossible for an artist to cite a song that influenced them subconsciously.
Other issues might include WHO to cite (as established in the video, it's difficult to pinpoint who "owns" a musical idea) and WHEN to cite (at what point does a musical idea, for example a II-V-I, become public domain?)
Also, it sounds borderline classist to me. Quoting is an intellectual act. Imagine someone like Kurt Cobain having to put his work into context before being able to release it. I just don't see it...
the thing is - you don't cite the owner of an idea, you cite a piece where you've heard that idea. and if that goes for long enough - interested parties can find one person who first came up with it (likely - no one, because no idea is fully original, they're all just iterations, lol)
but it's not really a solution for a legal dispute, just for people to not get tilted when their work gets plagiarized (in part because they get compensated with *exposure* mwahahah)
@@shammerHammer I'd say it depends on how you view the citation process; sure, if an academic writes a full PHD and *then* decides to do all their referencing, then that's a huge task to do all at once. But if you cite as you work (whether that's in academia or in music, eg. "oh, I remember hearing this lick in a BB King song once"), it just becomes part of the process, and not this huge wall you've got to climb over before you can release your stuff
I totally agree. Hard to cite sources of a tune or motif that came to you in the shower or in a dream, which is not uncommon for creators. You'd have to source everything you've ever heard up to that point.
@@robertreid2241 While you're right about citation being part of the process and not something to do in hindsight, music and academic writing differ a lot here. Unlike writing a paper, "writing" music has very little to do with putting words on a paper. If I have to put down my instrument in order to write down where the lick I just played came from, it would pause the creative process and hinder the flow a lot.
This is a great video and all, but it's super frustrating because I had the idea for citing sources already! But Adam gets all the credit because he's a big RUclipsr.
Adam you are a remarkable teacher. I'm speaking as an experienced IP professional who teaches a graduate level IP Strategy course at Wharton for future entrepreneurs, creators, and industry executives. My course emphasizes technology innovations, but more and more we analyze innovations that are deep cross-overs between music and tech. There is so much to learn from your memorable videos about *how* to explain and teach these ideas!! Am feeling downright inspired after watching this. I truly hope that perhaps one day I can entice you to guest in one of our classes and share your perspective live with our students if only for a few minutes -- remotely, whatever is most convenient and workable for you!
For that entire first section I was praying and hoping you would bring up the blues clues part and when you played it i actually cheered. thank you funny music man
You never cease to surprise me with your research. Even after studying music at a grad level experience every video you give constantly adds to my knowledge. Thank you so very much and great respect on your content. Valuable as shit even on RUclips.
As an aspiring composer whenever I come up with something new I’m always paranoid with the thought of “what if I accidentally stole this”.
I'd love such a citation system! The amounts of musical rabbit holes I could fall into by working my way back from the songs I love... I'd take that a thousand times over the illusion of originality
I actually really like the citation system and when I make my own music I often inadvertantly have tried to do the same.
There's this song called "Oh Montmarte" by Kristen Kristmason, an obscure Quebecois folk and jazz musician. Somehow though, my dad found her music some time in the early 2000s, probably a lucky find at the library. The lyrics are in French, I language I don't speak, though my father speaks it. I asked him what the lyrics meant one day and then wrote it down. I swapped some words around to make it sound good in English and have similar syllable characteristics to the French original. I play that song for people a lot and they ask me if I wrote it, and I say no but I translated it and also half the words are my own edits, but the original story is maintained for the most part, and also when I first learnt the song I learnt it by ear and actually learnt the chords slightly differently than what I've realized the real version is. So yeah, I kinda did write it. I'd say I wrote about 60% of the value of it when I play it. By any labour theory (which of course the US legal system does not recognize), I'd say I own it.
That system is bollocks. If you never heard a song in your life, who will you quote? chances are there are 40 compositions sharing your same chord progression, out of the billion songs registered in world's history, you will quote them all? and why you will quote them if you got your idea from your own head?........this system also leaves open to sueing and losing your copyrights on your own music.
Is it this one? ruclips.net/video/OiHLEtFPjz8/видео.html
This is incredibly stupid, I'm a musician not a music scholar. If I borrow from somewhere, fine, but if it happened by accident? If I have never heard this song or composer? Or did I hear it by accident a million years ago and it just surfaced subconsciously during a session today? Or maybe after every new track I have to search thee world music database? Oh wait, there is no such database. There is nothing more stupid and easy to abuse than this idea.
Another great example of this kind of situation is the similarity between Carlos Lyra's "Maria Moita" and possibly the one most recognisable guitar solo ever (Deep Purple's "smoke on the water").
It was an example I was expecting to see in the video.
The main question in this video is: Why should we pay musicians, composer, lyricists? And many people don't unterstand why is a homemade sandwhich cheaper, than a sandwhich in a diner - but the other way round it's quite simple: EVERYONE in the music industry get's paid: all the CEO's and employees at youtube, apple, spotify - WHY NOT musicians, composers and lyricists? (Musicians get 0,04 cent to 0,08 Cent per stream from tech-companies and spotify... Last question: A.I. is not a person - who get's all the money? Big companies or the little guy? That is the "elephant in the room" in this discussion. IMHO)
Someone also needs to get this in front of Larry Lessig and the higher ups at Electronic Frontier Foundation. You all can help one another. Bravo man.
👍
You're simply the best RUclips channel on music. It is quite impressive to watch how good your video essays are. It gives me a sense of satisfaction. When are you going to tour here, in Brazil?
This should be an award-winning video essay. Great job.
Really well researched and presented! Thank you for putting this together. You are instrumental in helping us get past the inhabitions that the fear of not being "original" can impose. Keep up the great work.
Adam IS instrumental 💚
Its an awesome day when you see Adam play live and then come home and watch Adam explain copyright
Must have been Groningen!
This is an amazing video, man. I have listened to many discussions about copyright and this is the first one that massively shifts my understanding of it. Plus you have some super-clear and concise musical theory in the middle.
Every judge on the planet needs to watch this video. Twice.
EDIT: And every lawyer thinking about bringing one of these stupid cases forward. "You watch the video yet? How many times?"
Just to note about the Beach Boys Remake of "I can hear music", with the Ronettes recording the original. It was one of the first songs by the BB that Brian truly had no involvement in, whether it be composing, producing, or playing any instrument or adding vocals himself.
If I had to cite my sources there would be hundreds of them, if not thousands. Lots of food for thought in this vid. Good work.
Loved this video. There's something about people explaining things both passionately and rationally that I find so... beautiful and fascinating. Thank you :)
also Eliminate being featured in one of these was completely unexpected hahaha
I find your proposal at the end of the video very interesting. While it makes a lot of sense for things like jazz and sample-based music, it wouldn't work as well for other styles, and that's because it's often difficult to know what sources you've drawn from when making a piece of music. Every piece you listen to contributes towards your cultural understanding of music, and so you're very likely to use a compositional element from a specific song without knowing what song it was from. What I write is influenced by so many things in small amounts that it would be impossible to cite any of them because I just don't know where the ideas came from. Requiring every significant contribution of ideas to be stated would be very difficult in many cases.
“You are what you eat.” I plan on having that expression along with a Music Digested list. 🐧🐉
KDVM. It is a ridiculous, unworkable idea, made by a complete idiot !
I agree completely. The first “jazz song“ that I wrote took the lyrics from the apostle Paul in the New Testament. The chord progression was a simple 251 in the key of C changing to the relative minor A minor to D7 followed by a riff in D minor and ending in a tritone substitution. I have no idea whom I would site as the source of the inspiration for this chord progression! I don’t think the apostle Paul understood jazz theory.
@@TranquiloTrev 😐 Dude. I can see you and that big chip on your shoulder. What do you need: a hug, a ham sandwich, an escort? Perhaps get some instead of blaming Adam. 🥱
I have been waiting for this one for years. Thanks a million for making this. 🙏🏼
Reggae, rocksteady and ska borrow stuff from each other all the time. As I keep driving into the history of Jamaican music, the more references and shared vocabulary I see throughout. Makes sense since those early ska bands were heavily influenced by American jazz. It’d be interesting to see what the copyright laws are in Jamaica and if derivative works are protected. Great video!
So true, as far as I know copyright law in the early days in Jamaica was an absolute mess, in regards to musicians/artists not being payed. In terms of exchanging the riddim and re-using each other I don't really know if people actually really went after each other, I think you're right in saying re using musical ideas would be so ingrained in their music as much of it came from re interpretations of early american jazz or pop tune. And the idea of re recording a vocal over the same riddim, or re mixing a dub, was such a vital part of the function of music in those early days. Though I do seem to recall Coxone from studio one being pissed at channel one or something for re recording all his riddims.
Jamaica has it's own copyright society, called Jacap, but most major artists rely on US societies as Ascap or BMI.
In the early days, it was a mess, with studio owners like Coxone Dodd or Duke Reid, basically getting royalties for everything with songwriters being highly penalised, not to mention musicians whose contribute was also huge. Over the years things got a bit better, but still a lot of loopholes are exploited to take advantage of less business savy artistes.
@@BrowsSmellLikeShit today if you use a classic riddim, but update it or modify it sensibly, you have to quote both the composer(s) of the original and yours or that of those who did the adaptation. And all this goes for the 50% music, while the lyrics 50%, obviously, is credired to the lyrics' author(s).
i cant imagine any musician who wouldnt love to tag their inspirations onto their music
I always love how you put these videos together - excellent writing and composition.
This one unsurprisingly particularly amused this one-time philosophy major with grad degrees in theology.
I enjoy music so much and wish I understood it better. This channel is a huge help and really entertaining along the way.
Je suis français et je ne suis pas sûr d'avoir saisi toutes les subtilités du discours d'Adam mais qu'est-ce que c'était intéressant !
J'adore la conclusion: le copyright n'est plus là pour défendre le droit des artistes mais est devenu une source de revenu pour certaines compagnies.
Ce même principe de copyright fait tomber dans l'oubli des artistes majeurs. En effet ,en tant que papa d'ado (12 et 18 ans) je sais qu'ils et leurs copains n'ont aucune idée de qui sont The Beatles, The Rollings Stones, The Eagles, etc etc etc Tous ces artistes, dont les droits sont détenus par des compagnies qui font la chasse au copyright, sont simplement en train de se tirer une balle dans le pied: les prochaines générations n'en auront rien à faire d'eux, alors que vaudront ces catalogues? Nada.
A+
Rick Beato talks about this whenever one of his educational videos is blocked due to copyright. While their current customers are dying off, Don Henley and Universal Music Group are in effect spending money to prevent young people from ever discovering their precious intellectual property. 🤦🏿♀️