-
You make some good points too. I agree in general about Squarepusher, etc. The sliced and diced sound of the altered pattern changes it a lot, true. I don't know if it's right to assume it's okay for something to be considered public domain after a certain amount of time, especially if the original guy didn't get any compensation for it. He may have based his pattern on something else or someone else too, as you point out, but he's the one who played, and I can only assume, created it.
My main reason for getting into this, is if we can't give him any money, we should at least acknowledge G.C. Coleman's name as an important drummer as worthy of recognition as say Clyde Stubblefield, and his role (and perhaps unintentionally), his contribution to modern music.
Brad
-
I know there are rules around when and how a piece of music or literature enters public domain though I don't know what they are. It's not based on public opinion, though it does all seem a little out of control at the moment how those rules can be countermanded or circumvented. I also know of a standard of limited "fair use" of intellectual property that includes quotation, or non-commercial use for educational purposes.
On recognition: yes, definitely. I totally agree that at very least a person should be recognized for a contribution that ended up shaping so much of the future. Give the drummer some! Maybe we should start a G.C. Coleman recognition fund and encourage all those ravers and hip-hoppers to spend 2% of their clubbing budgets to give props to the initiators. With a fraction of the amount of money that was made using these ideas (or even the drum sound!), or spent on the events that rose from them, Coleman and his family could have lived for a while I imagine.
The puzzle of concepts around property is that the people who figure out the money end reap the lion's share of the benefits. Often this gets really concentrated--as in that "Shadows of Motown" documentary, talking about the musicians who made all of those Motown hits. For those who haven't seen it, it's worth checking out! The original players often do it for love and make enough to get them through the week, while some industry mogul controls the channels for distribution and is eating steak and lobster. And now that those Motown records have all been made, who in 2005 is making the residuals? It's not Pistol or any of the drummers, or the other musicians. Their contribution was paid for (poorly) on the spot and then back to figure out how to pay the m'f'n rent for most of them, despite that these guys contributed some of the greatest and most recognized drum tracks in American history. No, some corporation or conglomerate owns the rights to those, I think. Correct me if I'm wrong.
As Courtney Love pointed out in her famous speech on the subject, the intellectual property laws seem to serve the industry types way better than the artists. I suspect--though don't have a strong argument to support this at the moment--that this relationship goes a long way to creating the system that keeps most musicians un- or under-employed, and the successful ones in the contractual pocket of the industry.
OK, too much for my head tonight so I'll quit. Peace all.
-
Fascinating. That really (honestly) has opened my eyes.
Thanks so much.
