McLeod

pg. 14, in reference to "This Land is Your Land": "This means that in the twenty-first century, the publishing company that owns the late Guthrie's music can earn money from a song about communal property, which was itself based on a tune that is over a century old...far more disturbing, Guthrie's publishing company prevents musicians from releasing altered, updated lyrical versions of that song..."

This story is really frustrating to me. This song wasn't even completely his in the first place, and he isn't alive, so the people that "own" the song and making money off of it may not have even known Guthrie. He used a melody that belonged to two other songs from history, and now his publishing company won't allow others to build on it? Besides capital gain for the publishing company, what is being gained by locking it up? From what McLeod claims, Guthrie wouldn't have been happy with his music being "locked up" from culture for corporate capital gain.

pg. 111: "They make it clear that the Beatles are not for sale when it comes to digital sampling, because it will damage the integrity of the original songs...hundreds of butchered cover versions have been released...you can denigrate the original meaning of the song both with instruments and with samplers...why should one form of creativity be free and another severely constrained?

Again, frustrating. How can a sample be more damaging to a song than an awful cover? I don't think a 4 second sample of a Beatles song will change anyone's mind about the iconic classic Beatles hits. Maybe the companies are worried that the samples will overcome the originals in the minds of new generations and so the originals will be lost??? Even still, some of the coolest sampling comes from iconic music like that...the reason it's effective is because everyone recognizes those few seconds, and then it's gone...and you're like "Whoa, was that the Beatles??" and by that point, the Beatles are gone, and something new in the song starts.

As a songwriter myself, I find SO much inspiration in other people's music. I am especially intrigued by lyrics. I would never write a song to copy someone, that would completely defeat the purpose of why I write. I write as an outlet, to communicate things I feel and express those feelings to whoever happens to hear. Why would I want to regurgitate someone else's ideas when I have ideas of my own? It isn't about money, it's about expression. I promise that 99% of songwriters feel the same way. It's about being inspired...and lots of the time, that inspiration comes from other people! So it is frustrating to me that I have to worry about performing covers, or arranging classic songs. I don't understand why people don't think that using pieces from other work isn't creative. McLeod talks about how even classical composers borrowed from each other, and those names have become some of the most creative names in history! Why can't I use a quick line from a Guthrie or a Beatles song without being paranoid that someone will come after me saying that I threaten the integrity of the original song? Ok, I could keep going for a long time, but I think my point has been made :)