Saturday question #23 – To copy or not to copy?
Written on July 18, 2009 in Saturday Questions & with 14 responses
Tags: arts, copy, music, potpourii, saturday question
OK, and now for something completely different.
There's that cartoon where a character in a talent audition says that he's going to imitate Frankie, who's imitating Ricky, who's imitating Elvis. It might sound funny, but it probably is what everyone's doing nowadays: regardless of the type of the performing art - acting, music, comedy, and it probably occurs in the other types of arts as well as in design, journalism, perhaps even science and politics.
So, this week's Saturday question is: do you think copying is OK? If you think so, are you copying anyone in anything? Also, if you're not doing it, who else's doing it and whom are they copying?
For previous Saturday questions, click here.
14 Reactions to Saturday question #23 – To copy or not to copy?
Pravila za komentarisanje:
i'm going to use this quote for this one: "Those who do not want to imitate anything, produce nothing." by Salvador Dali.
i think copying it's essencial for any kind of art actually. i'm going to take john's example. at young age he was imitating or copying, as you wish, some of Jimi Hendrix's kind of music and form of playing the guitar until he can produce some of his own music, based on what he learn with Hendrix's music. And this happen in any kind of art or science or politics.
other example. if any scientist tried to imitate another scientist's work, they probably won't be able to find some weak points in that same work, wich would lead to some upgrades and evolutions.
example: a plastic surgeon at long time ago, discovered that injecting hot wax in people's face would change their shape, of course that this would bring some other problems for those who submit to this kind of intervation, but if any later plastic surgeons tried to copy that and improved it we wouldn't have modern plastic surgery nowadays.
Yeah the imitation is good, sometimes is unconsciously.
For example, if you play a lot of Frusciante's songs on the guitar, when you try to compose
surely you will do songs in the style of Frusciante.
As one teacher told me: Copying a single musician is stealing, copying to many is inspiration
Excuse my bad inglish, but I think you will understand me
Wow, this is a really good question. I have never posted here before so it actually got me to stop being a lurker, lol. Anyway, I kind of live by the philosophy that everything is everything. All that is, is all that ever was, so even when you think you are being creative you are really just pulling from the ultimate reality... the same place everyone else gets their stuff.
Anyway, this can apply to other kinds of things not just music, as the poster above refered to medicine. What about people trying to do something in sports? They might copy a workout from someone trying to get the same result. I dance a lot and I once thought I had made up this move. I know I had NEVER seen it before I did it this one day. THen I was in a club a week later and this girl was doing that very move which I had never seen before and thought I made up.... so... I think "copying" is really just the undertones of those who have inspired you playing out in your work.
I think there's no bad to copy something but then, the merit should come to the creator, we shouldn't make believe that we create something without saying how much it is copied on something else.
well, i think that there is a big different between copying something or someone and get inspiration by it. when you take something that someone else did and you learn it and try to find your own way to make something new from it then it is not copying in my opinion. but if you try to like impress people or if you do something like this other person and you don't try to understand it or make it your own way then it is copying. and also to do everything the same way like this person is also copying because if you do it like others and don't try to find your own identity in it then you don't learn from it as you think you do.
There is a clear and highly tangible line between copying and inspiration. I think the word "copying" is incorrectly used here; no musician should ever copy something outright. However, when one thinks about it, just about everything ever put to record is influenced by a milieu of different artists, time periods and cultural movements.
I think whoever placed you on this planet was even more incorrect.
yeah everyone pretty much said what i think. I think the difference between copying and inspiration is actually very, very thin. And not a bad thing at all. And a lot of artistic inspiration, as I've posted, many artists think comes from somewhere outside of them, they've just done the work to document it and get it on tape/canvas.etc.. They deserve credit for that, and no one should copy a song verbatim without giving the artists credit and royalites, but in a more vague manner, no one owns a feeling. And if you want to create a certain feeling musically and someone else has created it, why not try your skills at copying it? The most important thing is passion, the feeling behind it, etc. A lot of blues is based on the same 12 bar blues structure and yet I can be blown away by the energy a blues performer is putting out there to where, in that space and time, it is a new and awesome experience.
I think while everyone has some spark unique to them, they percieve it through the lens of how they are brought up, what they've experienced in their life, etc. In a way no one thinks for themselves completely. But I think people need to try and stand up for themselves...for example say you're a Hendrix fan but you like this bit better than that bit. You still have your own taste. Or a friend you mostly agree with - you have the guts to stand up if you disagree. As far as ideas that are more concrete, like political ideas, etc., I think people should give credit where it's due. I think God wants us to recognize what's individual about each person. So even though very much we are similar, if someone has a spark of uniqueness that's obviously not a copy it should be praised. More like rather than putting down copying, praising originality.
oh and what do I copy? I'll be back to answer that one.
may I refer you back to the many, many interviews w/ John (that I read right here in I-M in the articles section) where he talks about listening to records, playing along with records, and studying music, in order to, and I quote, get "ideas for songs"? He places high importance on this, and also on people who "know alot about music", meaning they are well versed in a variety of artists and styles.
I admire thus attitude very much, it's advice I take when approaching my own music and life. That's why we STUDY anything... fundamentals are the building blocks and learning things from people who know more than you (well maybe not in John's case), or know different things than you, that have different ways of looking at the world... discipline and study are needed to achieve greatness and true understanding of one's craft and one's self, and in order to break the rules and create something new you must know what the rules are, so they can be broken with style! (Another quote of John's comes to mind... don't remember exactly... it echoed something like this tho...) With the whole history of human knowledge and progress at your disposal, why would you ignore it?
I copied John on this song:
The Way You Call For Me
Okay, maybe inspiration is a better term.
Peterldg, dude that's a pretty nice tune!
empty soul.
I cannot explain how your comment makes me feel. To know that you listened makes my day!
For real. Thanks for your compliment!
I think tcopy is necessary when for example you´re beginning to learn how to play guitar or make your own music. Copy can helps you to get inspiration and create something new and different...