X-Envelope-to: ALLMUSIC@AUVM.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"ALLMUSIC@AUVM.BITNET"
X-VMS-Cc: OLIVOTTO
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.allmusic
Date:         Tue, 13 Oct 1992 10:59:54 +0000
From:         "OUT,
              OUT - YOU'LL NOT FEEL THE FALL-OUT..." <OLIVOTTO@ITNCISCA.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Perfumed ambience

Mike Masuda says:

>Of course, there are good players and bad players in both ways.
>What seems enigmatic, is that in between both extremes, there is
>a lot of trouble.  You can't play a long lick done by someone else
>and claim it to be yours--case in point, the solo from
>"Stairway to Heaven"--You can't play that whole solo in the middle
>of another song with the same chord progression and claim it to be
>an original solo.  That's plagiarism (and a laughable plagiarism
>in this case).  It's no longer an improvisation.  Hmmmm...

        Perfect point, Mike. I think the problem lies, as always, in
the structure. Since you talk about "Stairway To Heaven" -- let's keep
this example. Page plays the famous solo on the most abused chord
sequence in rock: Am-G-F-G and repeat ad libitum. I can't really
imagine how many songs have been written on this pattern (or equiva-
lent in a different key). But of course this does not justify that a
guitarist plays a solo like Page (good luck) on another song.
        If you think of rock'n'roll -- original, "root" rock'n'roll
like "Rock Around The Clock", you notice that the chord structure is
always more or less similar. The same goes for a lot of blues tunes:
you have these 12 bars with little (if ever) chord changes, and most
blues songs sound pathetically similar to each other. If people aren't
tired to listen to blues after decades, it is simply because there is
*something* that can overwhelm the boring pattern of seventh chords:
and that is the feeling of course. If someone plays a solo on a blues
scale (a pure blues scale, I mean) he will certainly repeat an already
existing pattern sooner or later. But the small variations will at the
very same time make what he plays sound unique. This is why one can
tell a solo by Eric Clapton from a solo by Johnny Winter.
        And then, of course, things can be expanded at will. New scales
are available, and small to large contaminations with other styles can
be done, etc etc. IMHO, this is the real power of improvisation.

>What is the limit where a string of ordered notes becomes
>a plagiarism?  7 notes?  Don't you hate it when a new group
>comes up with a "new" song and borrows a few melody lines from
>someone else? I think it's really stupid, and I make fun of it
>whenever I can, because I think it's basically musical ignorance.

        Unanswerable question. In Italy we have a law stating that a song
is a rip-off when it has *at least* EIGHT bars equal to another. This means
you pick a song, keep 7 bars identical and change a note in the 8th and
the new one is made. It's simply a matter of convenience.
        Absolutely absurd, in my opinion, but it's a way that keeps rappers
and dance artist out of jail :) (oops!).

>I guess that's why some guitarists are sensitive about other people
>stealing their riffs.  It's like stealing their soul away...

        For legal reason, I can use Beethoven without stealing anything
from anyone. It's public domain music. The same more or less goes for
riffs, though this is *not* legal. "Satisfaction" had a two-bar riff,
and a very good one, which was used times and times and times again.
They get "stolen" at least unadvertently, because they are so short...
one hears them and they sort of cling themselves to the DNA. There are
millions of possibilities, but they have all more or less been used
I think. Again, the point is that a scale usually has seven notes or less
(twelve if you want to make it awkward, and then one can use quarter-tones
and cents, but let's not go overboard).

>And now, with the advent of rap technology, anyone can lift a groove
>from a record and claim it to be theirs.  It's become an acceptable
>thing to do.  Wanna be musicians don't need any talent other than a good ear
>for grooves to become an overnite sensation.  A couple of James Brown
>records, a sampler, and some lyrics that cop on another rapper
>is all that is needed.  Pretty sad.

        How do I subscribe to your club for copyright protection?

>On expression:  Over the history of music,
>the focus has changed from one concept to another.  I was thinking about
>this also.  Maybe there's a samsara (hi Marco), a circular pattern
>that's going on here
>melody-the first step of the cycle.  Simple and purely stated.
>virtuosity-taking polymelodies and mixing them together, speed
>mood-a reaction against the virtuosity, return to emotions from the emotionless
>ingenuity-a new technology or concept is discovered and utilised
>beat-the masses take the technology and use it in simpler form
>melody-reaction against mindless rhythms, simple rhythms are reintroduced.
>etc.

        Hi Mike -- in return :) .
        This is an interesting pattern. I am uncertain whether there is some-
thing missing, but this is a very clever analysis in my opinion. And when you
say:

>melody                renaissance
>virtuosity            baroque, classical
>mood                  romantic, impressionistic
>ingenuity             post-impressionistic
>
>beat                  swing
>melody                radio pop
>virtuosity            bebop
>mood                  cool jazz, blues
>ingenuity             fusion jazz
>beat                  jazz rock
>
>beat                  rock and roll
>melody                sixties pop
>virtuosity            progressive rock, heavy metal (Zep)
>mood                  funk, blues rock
>ingenuity             synthesized music
>beat                  disco, punk, technofunk
>melody                early 80s pop (Police, etc.)
>virtuosity            metal revival
>mood                  late 80s pop (Sting, Peter Gabriel, dirge music)
>ingenuity             world beat
>beat                  rap, house
>melody                90s pop (the better of modern rock)

(sorry for the long quote, but guys -- this scheme is awesome in my opinion!)
I can't help to guess whether a new virtuosity phase is opening up.
        Anyway -- the example I am most familiar with exactly fits in this pat-
tern -- and happened in England between 1962 and 1992. Expanding Michael's idea
a bit, I might say:

*ENGLISH POP/ROCK MUSIC*
>melody                 The Beatles, Spencer Davis Group, the Merseybeat move-
                        ment (early 60s)

*** transition --> psychedelia: less melody, more experiments (early P. Floyd)

>virtuosity             Canterbury school, early progressive music (Genesis,
                        VdGG)

*** transition --> gothic rock (late Yes, late Emerson Lake & Palmer): more
                   technical skill, less heart

>mood                   Whatever lies between punk and Peter Gabriel...

*** transition --> early shy attempts to make "clever" dance music (The Human
                   League, Heaven 17, etc) and world music contamination

>ingenuity              Electronic technology to the extreme, start of hard-
                        core (Sigue Sigue Sputnik, Frankie Goes To Hollywood)

*** transition --> the pitiful chaos of late 80s

>beat                   Yup: rap, techno and all the countless waves of dance
                        made "for the dance" and nothing else. Rave, of cour-
                        se.

*** transition --> happening now!

>melody                 Well, it seems to be back actually. One name for all:
                        My Bloody Valentine. Noisy noisy noisy guitars and,
                        at the very same time, you can sing along.

*** transition --> WHO KNOWS?

>virtuosity             WHO KNOWS?



        Anyone wants to jump in? The Bloom? What about Oillean Pipes in the
next virtuosity stage, Carol? :) Pennywhistles? Shall we have Holdsworth re-
vamped and finally a star, "n.n."?
        OK, I shut up!

        Ciao, Marco
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU