RE: [Harp-L] plagarism

[Tom Ball <havaball@xxxxxxx>]

Glenn writes:
 There are many instances of counrty blues songs loosely based on 
forerunners. Robert Johnson, Son House and Muddy all recorded 
"Walkin' Blues."  But the lyrics were never exactly the same, nor the 
the guitar parts. There are times when some country blues players 
like Bo Carter recycled their guitar parts  for other sets of lyrics, 
but I can't think of a single instance where a country blues blues 
copped a guitar part from another artist note-for-note.

Tom Ball, can you think of any examples of this, please? In country 
blues, what I see are players who had their own parts worked out and 
appear to have prided themselves on originality.... <snip>

------------

Hmmm... that's food for thought and your point is well taken.  But 
since you asked... <g>

Yes, I can think of a few examples of guitar parts copped 
note-for-note. Elmore James' redux of Robert Johnson's "Dust My 
Broom" (and claiming authorship of it.) All the later "original" 
versions of Hambone Willie Newburn's "Rollin' And Tumblin'." 
William Moore's guitar rag "Old Country Rock" is mighty close to 
Blind Blake's "Old Southern Rag." (In fact Blake's material was often 
redone, and doubtlessly would have been redone note-for-note more 
often except for the fact that his playing was so brilliant, almost 
nobody else could do it.)  And it could be argued that Little Son 
Jackson stole from Lightnin' Hopkins who stole from Funny Papa Smith 
who stole from Blind Lemon.

In more recent times I recall a Cream song (it might have been 
"Strange Brew?") in which Clapton played an entire 12-bar Albert King 
solo note-for-note. Stevie Ray did the same. Is that plagiarism or 
tribute? <shrug>  I honestly don't know, but Albert didn't seem too 
bothered about it.  Hell, if EC or SRV swiped one of *my* guitar 
solos, I'd be poppin' a friggin' champagne cork.  :)

Having said all this, however, you're right that these occurances do 
seem to happen less frequently on guitar than on harp, in my opinion 
primarily because the guitar -- with it's chromaticism (is that even 
a word?) and ability to play augmented and diminished chords -- is 
inherently a more complex instrument than a diatonic harp.  One is 
simply capable of playing more *stuff* on guitar, making it less 
likely that one could or would repeat note-for-note the work of 
others.

But I do hear what you're saying and I'm not in disagreement. I often 
teach people note-for-note licks by the old masters, but at the same 
time always encourage folks to use those licks as a jumping-off-point 
-- to develop, alter, change and improvise upon the masters' works. 
I'm sure that you do the same.  In my opinion, what you described 
shows a lack of creativity and originality, but I'd still stop short 
at calling it outright plagiarism. I guess it's all in the semantics, 
no?

And BTW I respect your taking the high road and not outing said offender.

Even though I'm pretty damned curious.  :)

cheers,
TB