April 24, 2008
How to Have Another Number One Hit - Plagiarize Yourself
Conspiracy Theory #3
In 1995, an up and coming singer scored herself a (Billboard Country) number one hit. I remember hearing that song while waiting tables at a greasy spoon; the cook insisted on listening to the local "Corporate" Country station, much to my disdain.
In 1999, that very same singer (now a Country Music Diva) scored another number one country single, only this song also made it to number 2 on Billboard's Hot 100! At the time, I remember hearing the song and thinking that it sounded familiar, but it wasn't until lately that I found myself singing the words to the 1995 hit while the newer song was playing on the muzak at work.
So, I obtained a copy of both songs and did a comparison. What I found is that the hooks* of the two songs are virtually identical musically. In fact, the two singles are more than similar throughout. But, don't take my word for it, listen to this montage of the two songs that I have created:
The 1995 song is in the LEFT speaker. The 1999 song is in the Right Speaker
The two songs were written by different writing teams but were both very important milestones in the singer's career. Fans may say, "who cares? The songs are great, The singer is very talented and at the end of the day, millions of people bought the music." I agree but just want to point out that millions of people also buy music that isn't plagiarized, isn't doctored in a lab and isn't given a leg up by relentless label marketing. That music will still be important in 10 years. Who will care about a fake Country Music Diva in 10 minutes. So, why should I have to listen to her now?
*Hook: A hook is a musical idea, often a short riff, passage, or phrase, that is used in popular music to make a song appealing and to "catch the ear of the listener".[1] This term generally applies to popular music, especially rock music, dance, and pop music. In these genres, the hook is often found in, or consists of, the chorus. A hook can, in general, be either melodic or rhythmic, and often incorporates the main motif for a piece of music. (Wik: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Musical_hook )
Posted by i220 at 08:20 AM | Comments (0)
January 22, 2006
Downloading and the Creative "Collective SUBconciousness"
Conspiracy Theory #2
Collective: "...a group of individuals considered as a whole"
Creative: "To ba able to bring into being (para)."
Subconciousness: "Mental activities just below the threshold of conciousness."
(The Merriam-Webster Dictionary, 2004)
In "regular speak", The Creative "Collective Subconciousness" is:
1. Everybody's minds are plugged into one another.
2. Without knowing it we are all part of a big "mind pow wow". Together we determine trends, general attitudes; the future.
3. Artists (more specifically in this case, musicians) are "hardwired" into this "mind-mainframe". They are better able to take ideas from it (youth may also be a factor). We call this "inspiration".
Note: This theory IS out there, I'm sure. Unfortunately, Google = $, not theory.
If the creation of music was thought to be a byproduct of everone's mind working together, how would that reflect on today's music industry? In essence, they would be bottling up "our" musical ideas and selling them back to us :S. Assuming that this were true, maybe it should be legal to download "our" music for free.
Today, musicians perform live, the industry sells songs and we pirate that music via the internet. The fact that musicians in good concience have difficulty selling us "our" music, businessmen have no problem with it and we are taking the music back all serve to support a theory of a "collective subconciousness". The most aware feel guilty, the least aware feel no guilt and the rest of us feel cheated. Still, one can't deny that nothing is free, but what should we be selling?
Before we proceed to write off the music industry as idea bandits, maybe we should look at other industries. As a person of this planet, do we not own the planet? It's all ours (within reason). If this is so, how can any industry sell us anything? Perhaps every industry is just delivering what's ours to us. Maybe we are simply paying that industry for it's service of that delivery, not the product itself. This line of thinking seems to excuse the music industry; in fact, it justifies it wholly. It is this writer's opinion that in order to settle this argument, we should poll everybody. Would we pay the forestry industry to bring us wood for furniture? Would we pay the pharmaceutical industry to turn our chemicals into life saving drugs? Should we pay a musical industry to steal our collective ideas and sell them back to us as product? A little?
The idea of everyone's brains composing music together would seem a little more than radical if it weren't for the fact that the present day music industry seems to reflect it. The artists, those the most "plugged in", aren't (for the most part) really selling music as product. They play it live and people who wish, pay to see them perform. The artists act as a vehical for the creative "collective subconciousness". On the other hand, industry execs (those less "plugged in") openly resell "our" ideas back to us. Ignorance is bliss?
If we accept a creative "collective subconciousness" , then, perhaps shareware does make the most sense after all. All of those with a computer can download music for free, with the understanding that they make it available to all others; all those who had a hand (or mind) in making it. If this were held to be true then the only concern would be that everybody should have access to this shareware and the music.
Finally, the idea that we all create art collectively WOULD be devistating to today's music industry. Making a living in music would become almost impossible. Modern day industry thrives on product. Collective ideas are tough to sell as product. But. A live act or show is saleable. Music derived from a "collectice subconciousness" is a great marketing tool; it is a great way to attract people to new ideas/ways of thinking. Those who truly immerse themselves in the inspiration and creation of music could make a living as a sort of musical "idea ambassador". The music industry, however depreciated, may just end up back in the hands of those who truly love music; those willing to give their life to it.
Could this theory actually be out there? Are there regular/non artistic people who feel that they should be able to download "their" music for free, even though someone invested a lot of money in pirating those communal ideas and packaging them for the public? Bet on it! You can find them amongst artists themselves, shareware participants and music fanatics. Are they right? Who knows? As an artist myself, I am more than a little worried. How will "I" survive? But. Should they have to change for me?
Posted by i220 at 11:14 PM | Comments (1)
April 15, 2005
Stifled Creativity
Conspiracy Theory #1
In my North American/Canadian upbringing, I'm not really sure that creativity was encouraged. In fact, I feel that it was DIScouraged. Opportunities to create in school were tokens of good will; bait to draw you into the common curriculum. Post secondary courses of study gave you templates for creation and frowned upon anything that didn't coincide with those guidelines. Finally, the jobmarket searches for clone workers rather than independent thinkers. In every facet of life, our strategies are less reliant upon genius and creative thinking and depend more on current trends that can (in reality) change like the weather.
Excercise tha grey matter. What do U think?
In grade school, I remember studying visual art, music and creative writing among other subjects. These subjects are ripe for developing student creativity. More often than not, however, we were told what to draw. We performed almost exclusively from sheet music. We would submit our stories only to have them returned completely rewritten. Opportunities to develop creativity were there but were the exception rather than the rule.
My university/college experience with regards to fostering creativity can be summed up by one class in particular; music composition. The teaching strategy was to show you how an established composer wrote (say a) fugue and tell you to compose a fugue just like he/she would have. The result would be 20 or so fugues that were supposed to mimick Bach's technique but really just fell short.
In reality, life after school isn't much different. A consultant studies and records trends in a particular market. The boss translates these market studies to the workplace and the worker puts them into practice. There seems to be less and less room for individual treatment of these practices as the establisment becomes more and more convinced that there is a way and that that way will remain the same forever :S
I feel that this is where today's system fails. I constantly hear that technology is changing our world at an exponential rate, yet strategies and practices are becoming more static. While many in power seem happy to bury their proverbial heads in the sand and wish to stifle the public's creativity in an effort to stall change, the change is snowballing. Whatever rude awakening we are approaching, it will take creative thinking to sidestep it. Those fighting the change will be forced once again to embrace those who have the genius to implement it.
Posted by i220 at 08:16 PM | Comments (3)
November 14, 2004
The "Conspiracy Theories" Category
'Cause the Man is always tryin' to keep us down! Spill your theories an' compilationz here.
Actually, how do we know that this website isn't just another one of the Man's traps? He lures us online, spies in on our ideas, sabotages our efforts and steals the goods right out from under our feet. Think about it man... LOL! Well, if you can see the forest for the treez while the rest of us are blinded by the neon - spit it out here. That way, when it all goes down, you can say, "I told ya so" and you'll actually have proof.
Make 'em at least slightly musically related and send ova your conspiricy theories to: weblog@themusicalrevolution.com
Employed by a huge conglomerate (or not)? Argue all you want, the rest of ain't afraid. Use the Comments button at the bottom of each entry.
Keep reading under the Conspiracy Theories Category:
Who is this so called "man" anyway?
Posted by i220 at 09:19 AM | Comments (10)