Check out this version that starts with the chorus like "Maybellene" does.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJ9_KG2oWf0
Ida Red, dressed in blue, I've got a gal, named Ida too.
Maybellene, why can't you be true. oh Maybellene, why can't you be true
On Monday, 23 October 2023 at 22:16:54 UTC+1, Bruce wrote:
Check out this version that starts with the chorus like "Maybellene" does.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJ9_KG2oWf0
Ida Red, dressed in blue, I've got a gal, named Ida too.Count me in the "I can't hear much resemblance between "Ida Red" and "Maybellene" club
Maybellene, why can't you be true. oh Maybellene, why can't you be true
But then again I never could hear the similarity between "My Sweet Lord" and "He's So Fine" either
On Tuesday, 24 October 2023 at 15:07:37 UTC+1, Bruce wrote:
On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 8:03:10 AM UTC-4, Roger Ford wrote:
On Monday, 23 October 2023 at 22:16:54 UTC+1, Bruce wrote:
Check out this version that starts with the chorus like "Maybellene" does.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJ9_KG2oWf0
Ida Red, dressed in blue, I've got a gal, named Ida too.Count me in the "I can't hear much resemblance between "Ida Red" and "Maybellene" club
Maybellene, why can't you be true. oh Maybellene, why can't you be true
But then again I never could hear the similarity between "My Sweet Lord" and "He's So Fine" either
Layman's ears.
YAWNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN!!!
On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 8:03:10 AM UTC-4, Roger Ford wrote:
On Monday, 23 October 2023 at 22:16:54 UTC+1, Bruce wrote:
Check out this version that starts with the chorus like "Maybellene" does.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJ9_KG2oWf0
Ida Red, dressed in blue, I've got a gal, named Ida too.Count me in the "I can't hear much resemblance between "Ida Red" and "Maybellene" club
Maybellene, why can't you be true. oh Maybellene, why can't you be true
But then again I never could hear the similarity between "My Sweet Lord" and "He's So Fine" either
Layman's ears.
On Tuesday, 24 October 2023 at 17:00:19 UTC+1, Bruce wrote:When Harrison lost the "My Sweet Lord" lawsuit they obviously had musical experts explaining to the judge (and jury if there was one) about the similarities that showed that the song was plagiarized from "He's So Fine." The judge didn't just say, "
On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 11:45:39 AM UTC-4, Roger Ford wrote:
On Tuesday, 24 October 2023 at 15:07:37 UTC+1, Bruce wrote:
On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 8:03:10 AM UTC-4, Roger Ford wrote:
On Monday, 23 October 2023 at 22:16:54 UTC+1, Bruce wrote:
Check out this version that starts with the chorus like "Maybellene" does.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJ9_KG2oWf0
Ida Red, dressed in blue, I've got a gal, named Ida too. Maybellene, why can't you be true. oh Maybellene, why can't you be trueCount me in the "I can't hear much resemblance between "Ida Red" and "Maybellene" club
But then again I never could hear the similarity between "My Sweet Lord" and "He's So Fine" either
Layman's ears.
YAWNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN!!!Other than Jim and maybe Steve, none of us here know much about actual music, we just know a lot about popular and not so popular recordings. We can't identify notes and time and chord changes and all of the other technical stuff that goes into music.
We're not even close to being qualified to say whether one song was taken from another here, although Chuck himself said it was, and first recorded it with mainly the "Ida Red" lyrics. Jim agrees, and that's good enough for me.I don't claim and have NEVER claimed to be any kind of expert on the actual nuts and bolts of MAKING the music we talk about and if that makes me a "layman" so be it.
But I think I know a little---as a fan----of much of the music we discuss on here and on that level I repeat "I can't hear much resemblance between "Ida Red" and "Maybellene"
Ditto "My Sweet Lord" and "He's So Fine"
On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 11:45:39 AM UTC-4, Roger Ford wrote:When Harrison lost the "My Sweet Lord" lawsuit they obviously had musical experts explaining to the judge (and jury if there was one) about the similarities that showed that the song was plagiarized from "He's So Fine." The judge didn't just say, "sounds
On Tuesday, 24 October 2023 at 15:07:37 UTC+1, Bruce wrote:
On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 8:03:10 AM UTC-4, Roger Ford wrote:
On Monday, 23 October 2023 at 22:16:54 UTC+1, Bruce wrote:
Check out this version that starts with the chorus like "Maybellene" does.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJ9_KG2oWf0
Ida Red, dressed in blue, I've got a gal, named Ida too.Count me in the "I can't hear much resemblance between "Ida Red" and "Maybellene" club
Maybellene, why can't you be true. oh Maybellene, why can't you be true
But then again I never could hear the similarity between "My Sweet Lord" and "He's So Fine" either
Layman's ears.
YAWNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN!!!Other than Jim and maybe Steve, none of us here know much about actual music, we just know a lot about popular and not so popular recordings. We can't identify notes and time and chord changes and all of the other technical stuff that goes into music.
We're not even close to being qualified to say whether one song was taken from another here, although Chuck himself said it was, and first recorded it with mainly the "Ida Red" lyrics. Jim agrees, and that's good enough for me.
On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 12:21:48 PM UTC-4, Roger Ford wrote:music. When Harrison lost the "My Sweet Lord" lawsuit they obviously had musical experts explaining to the judge (and jury if there was one) about the similarities that showed that the song was plagiarized from "He's So Fine." The judge didn't just say, "
On Tuesday, 24 October 2023 at 17:00:19 UTC+1, Bruce wrote:
On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 11:45:39 AM UTC-4, Roger Ford wrote:
On Tuesday, 24 October 2023 at 15:07:37 UTC+1, Bruce wrote:
On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 8:03:10 AM UTC-4, Roger Ford wrote:
On Monday, 23 October 2023 at 22:16:54 UTC+1, Bruce wrote:
Check out this version that starts with the chorus like "Maybellene" does.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJ9_KG2oWf0
Ida Red, dressed in blue, I've got a gal, named Ida too. Maybellene, why can't you be true. oh Maybellene, why can't you be trueCount me in the "I can't hear much resemblance between "Ida Red" and "Maybellene" club
But then again I never could hear the similarity between "My Sweet Lord" and "He's So Fine" either
Layman's ears.
YAWNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN!!!Other than Jim and maybe Steve, none of us here know much about actual music, we just know a lot about popular and not so popular recordings. We can't identify notes and time and chord changes and all of the other technical stuff that goes into
We're not even close to being qualified to say whether one song was taken from another here, although Chuck himself said it was, and first recorded it with mainly the "Ida Red" lyrics. Jim agrees, and that's good enough for me.I don't claim and have NEVER claimed to be any kind of expert on the actual nuts and bolts of MAKING the music we talk about and if that makes me a "layman" so be it.
But I think I know a little---as a fan----of much of the music we discuss on here and on that level I repeat "I can't hear much resemblance between "Ida Red" and "Maybellene"
Ditto "My Sweet Lord" and "He's So Fine"A layman's opinion.
On Tuesday, 24 October 2023 at 15:07:37 UTC+1, Bruce wrote:
We're not even close to being qualified to say whether one song was taken from another here, although Chuck himself said it was, and first recorded it with mainly the "Ida Red" lyrics. Jim agrees, and that's good enough for me.
On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 3:23:47 PM UTC-4, Bill B wrote:
On Tuesday, 24 October 2023 at 15:07:37 UTC+1, Bruce wrote:
pepper clubs", as he called them). Encouraged by Muddy Waters, in 1955 Berry brought to Chess Records a recording of Wills's song,[4] renamed "Ida May" and a blues song he wrote, "Wee Wee Hours", which he said was inspired by Big Joe Turner's "Wee BabyWe're not even close to being qualified to say whether one song was taken from another here, although Chuck himself said it was, and first recorded it with mainly the "Ida Red" lyrics. Jim agrees, and that's good enough for me.
You've said Chuck himself said it was numerous times, so can you please produce a quote from Chuck where he says so.Will "according to Berry" do?
"Maybellene" adapted parts of the Western Swing song "Ida Red", as recorded by Bob Wills and his Texas Playboys in 1938. According to Berry, Wills's version, an uptempo dance number, was his favorite song to sing at racially integrated clubs ("salt and
Chess wanted a bigger beat for the song and added a bass and a maracas player to Berry's trio at the recording session. He also thought the titles "Ida Red" and "Ida May" were "too rural". Spotting a mascara box on the floor of the studio, according toBerry's pianist Johnnie Johnson, Chess said, "Well, hell, let's name the damn thing Maybellene", altering the spelling to avoid a suit by the cosmetic company (the song would be covered as "Maybelline" almost as often as with the altered spelling). The
According to Berry he abridged the song's lyrics (Chuck Berry quote:) "from memories of high school and trying to get girls to ride in my 1934 V-8 Ford", adding that "Maybellene" was his own choice as "Ida May"'s replacement title, Maybellene being aname he recalled from a third-grade reader in which it was the name of a cow.
Historian Lee Roy Chapman traced mentions of Ida Red back to the Civil War era, where it appears as a traditional freeform folk song of unknown origins. The first recording of Ida Red dates back to 1924 by the Fiddlin' Powers and Family.
On Tuesday, 24 October 2023 at 17:43:16 UTC+1, Bruce wrote:music. When Harrison lost the "My Sweet Lord" lawsuit they obviously had musical experts explaining to the judge (and jury if there was one) about the similarities that showed that the song was plagiarized from "He's So Fine." The judge didn't just say, "
On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 12:21:48 PM UTC-4, Roger Ford wrote:
On Tuesday, 24 October 2023 at 17:00:19 UTC+1, Bruce wrote:
On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 11:45:39 AM UTC-4, Roger Ford wrote:
On Tuesday, 24 October 2023 at 15:07:37 UTC+1, Bruce wrote:
On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 8:03:10 AM UTC-4, Roger Ford wrote:
On Monday, 23 October 2023 at 22:16:54 UTC+1, Bruce wrote:
Check out this version that starts with the chorus like "Maybellene" does.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJ9_KG2oWf0
Ida Red, dressed in blue, I've got a gal, named Ida too. Maybellene, why can't you be true. oh Maybellene, why can't you be trueCount me in the "I can't hear much resemblance between "Ida Red" and "Maybellene" club
But then again I never could hear the similarity between "My Sweet Lord" and "He's So Fine" either
Layman's ears.
YAWNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN!!!Other than Jim and maybe Steve, none of us here know much about actual music, we just know a lot about popular and not so popular recordings. We can't identify notes and time and chord changes and all of the other technical stuff that goes into
We're not even close to being qualified to say whether one song was taken from another here, although Chuck himself said it was, and first recorded it with mainly the "Ida Red" lyrics. Jim agrees, and that's good enough for me.I don't claim and have NEVER claimed to be any kind of expert on the actual nuts and bolts of MAKING the music we talk about and if that makes me a "layman" so be it.
But I think I know a little---as a fan----of much of the music we discuss on here and on that level I repeat "I can't hear much resemblance between "Ida Red" and "Maybellene"
Ditto "My Sweet Lord" and "He's So Fine"A layman's opinion.
But an opinion that's firmly rooted in a saying you might have heard a time or two
ALL THAT MATTERS IS WHAT'S COMING OUT OF THE SPEAKERS !!
On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 11:45:39 AM UTC-4, Roger Ford wrote:When Harrison lost the "My Sweet Lord" lawsuit they obviously had musical experts explaining to the judge (and jury if there was one) about the similarities that showed that the song was plagiarized from "He's So Fine." The judge didn't just say, "sounds
On Tuesday, 24 October 2023 at 15:07:37 UTC+1, Bruce wrote:Other than Jim and maybe Steve, none of us here know much about actual music, we just know a lot about popular and not so popular recordings. We can't identify notes and time and chord changes and all of the other technical stuff that goes into music.
On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 8:03:10 AM UTC-4, Roger Ford wrote:YAWNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN!!!
On Monday, 23 October 2023 at 22:16:54 UTC+1, Bruce wrote:Layman's ears.
Check out this version that starts with the chorus like "Maybellene" does.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJ9_KG2oWf0
Ida Red, dressed in blue, I've got a gal, named Ida too.
Maybellene, why can't you be true. oh Maybellene, why can't you be true >>>> Count me in the "I can't hear much resemblance between "Ida Red" and "Maybellene" club
But then again I never could hear the similarity between "My Sweet Lord" and "He's So Fine" either
We're not even close to being qualified to say whether one song was taken from another here, although Chuck himself said it was, and first recorded it with mainly the "Ida Red" lyrics. Jim agrees, and that's good enough for me.
On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 1:39:45 PM UTC-4, Roger Ford wrote:music. When Harrison lost the "My Sweet Lord" lawsuit they obviously had musical experts explaining to the judge (and jury if there was one) about the similarities that showed that the song was plagiarized from "He's So Fine." The judge didn't just say, "
On Tuesday, 24 October 2023 at 17:43:16 UTC+1, Bruce wrote:
On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 12:21:48 PM UTC-4, Roger Ford wrote:
On Tuesday, 24 October 2023 at 17:00:19 UTC+1, Bruce wrote:
On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 11:45:39 AM UTC-4, Roger Ford wrote:
On Tuesday, 24 October 2023 at 15:07:37 UTC+1, Bruce wrote:
On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 8:03:10 AM UTC-4, Roger Ford wrote:
On Monday, 23 October 2023 at 22:16:54 UTC+1, Bruce wrote:
Check out this version that starts with the chorus like "Maybellene" does.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJ9_KG2oWf0
Ida Red, dressed in blue, I've got a gal, named Ida too. Maybellene, why can't you be true. oh Maybellene, why can't you be trueCount me in the "I can't hear much resemblance between "Ida Red" and "Maybellene" club
But then again I never could hear the similarity between "My Sweet Lord" and "He's So Fine" either
Layman's ears.
YAWNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN!!!Other than Jim and maybe Steve, none of us here know much about actual music, we just know a lot about popular and not so popular recordings. We can't identify notes and time and chord changes and all of the other technical stuff that goes into
We're not even close to being qualified to say whether one song was taken from another here, although Chuck himself said it was, and first recorded it with mainly the "Ida Red" lyrics. Jim agrees, and that's good enough for me.I don't claim and have NEVER claimed to be any kind of expert on the actual nuts and bolts of MAKING the music we talk about and if that makes me a "layman" so be it.
But I think I know a little---as a fan----of much of the music we discuss on here and on that level I repeat "I can't hear much resemblance between "Ida Red" and "Maybellene"
Ditto "My Sweet Lord" and "He's So Fine"A layman's opinion.
But an opinion that's firmly rooted in a saying you might have heard a time or two
ALL THAT MATTERS IS WHAT'S COMING OUT OF THE SPEAKERS !!
That's about deciding how good a recording is.
When it comes to music copyrights and plagiarism lots of other things matter. The fact that you can't hear any similarities between "My Sweet Lord" and "He's So Fine" confirms your ignorance as that is a proven and >accepted fact that "My Sweet Lord"plagiarized "He's So Fine."
Just rate the records from 0 to 10 or 1 to 10, and I'll do the same, and we'll leave the music analysis to the pros.
On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 3:54:19 PM UTC-4, Bruce wrote:
On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 3:23:47 PM UTC-4, Bill B wrote:
On Tuesday, 24 October 2023 at 15:07:37 UTC+1, Bruce wrote:
and pepper clubs", as he called them). Encouraged by Muddy Waters, in 1955 Berry brought to Chess Records a recording of Wills's song,[4] renamed "Ida May" and a blues song he wrote, "Wee Wee Hours", which he said was inspired by Big Joe Turner's "WeeWe're not even close to being qualified to say whether one song was taken from another here, although Chuck himself said it was, and first recorded it with mainly the "Ida Red" lyrics. Jim agrees, and that's good enough for me.
You've said Chuck himself said it was numerous times, so can you please produce a quote from Chuck where he says so.Will "according to Berry" do?
"Maybellene" adapted parts of the Western Swing song "Ida Red", as recorded by Bob Wills and his Texas Playboys in 1938. According to Berry, Wills's version, an uptempo dance number, was his favorite song to sing at racially integrated clubs ("salt
to Berry's pianist Johnnie Johnson, Chess said, "Well, hell, let's name the damn thing Maybellene", altering the spelling to avoid a suit by the cosmetic company (the song would be covered as "Maybelline" almost as often as with the altered spelling).Chess wanted a bigger beat for the song and added a bass and a maracas player to Berry's trio at the recording session. He also thought the titles "Ida Red" and "Ida May" were "too rural". Spotting a mascara box on the floor of the studio, according
name he recalled from a third-grade reader in which it was the name of a cow.According to Berry he abridged the song's lyrics (Chuck Berry quote:) "from memories of high school and trying to get girls to ride in my 1934 V-8 Ford", adding that "Maybellene" was his own choice as "Ida May"'s replacement title, Maybellene being a
stand on and you have lost this debate.Historian Lee Roy Chapman traced mentions of Ida Red back to the Civil War era, where it appears as a traditional freeform folk song of unknown origins. The first recording of Ida Red dates back to 1924 by the Fiddlin' Powers and Family.
No, "according to Berry" will not do. And your above quote does not clearly refer to the finished "Maybellene," but to the original demo. So you have failed to produce a Berry quote and have misrepresented Jim's position. I'd say you have nothing to
On Tuesday, 24 October 2023 at 19:09:45 UTC+1, Bruce wrote:
But an opinion that's firmly rooted in a saying you might have heard a time or two
ALL THAT MATTERS IS WHAT'S COMING OUT OF THE SPEAKERS !!
That's about deciding how good a recording is.
No,it's also the way of determining other things like how some records sound like other records which both you and I have remarked about on many occasions in the past
And for me one of those occasions is "Ida Red" vs "Maybellene. Which don't sound very alike to me
plagiarized "He's So Fine."When it comes to music copyrights and plagiarism lots of other things matter. The fact that you can't hear any similarities between "My Sweet Lord" and "He's So Fine" confirms your ignorance as that is a proven and>accepted fact that "My Sweet Lord"
And another occasion for me is "My Sweet Lord" vs "He's so Fine"
Whatever the lawyers and other legal people say doesn't alter my opinion. Nor does the verdict they reached.The fact remains....they still don't sound very alike to me.
Just rate the records from 0 to 10 or 1 to 10, and I'll do the same, and we'll leave the music analysis to the pros.
Well I for one will continue to express my opinions about whatever seems relevant at the time as I've done for the past 25 or so years
Check out this version that starts with the chorus like "Maybellene" does.
https://youtu.be/oJ9_KG2oWf0?t=10
Ida Red, dressed in blue, I've got a gal, named Ida too.
Maybellene, why can't you be true. oh Maybellene, why can't you be true
I just requested "Chuck Berry: The Autobiography" (1988) from the Queens >Public Library. We'll get to the bottom of this trivial dispute.
stand on and you have lost this debate.Bill B wrote:
No, "according to Berry" will not do. And your above quote does not clearly refer to the finished "Maybellene," but to the original demo. So you have failed to produce a Berry quote and have misrepresented Jim's position. I'd say you have nothing to
There was no demo of "Maybellene." The demo was called "Ida Mae," which Leonard Chess had Chuck change around to what eventually became "Maybelline." The people who participate in the debate don't get to judge who won the debate. That's up to theobservers of the debate to decide. But the larger point is that it is an accepted fact that "Maybellene" came from "Ida Red." I don't have Chuck's autobiography anymore, my dopey ex-wife loaned it to Dave Brigatti like 35 years ago, and I knew I'd never
On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 4:32:50 PM UTC-4, Bruce wrote:to stand on and you have lost this debate.
Bill B wrote:
No, "according to Berry" will not do. And your above quote does not clearly refer to the finished "Maybellene," but to the original demo. So you have failed to produce a Berry quote and have misrepresented Jim's position. I'd say you have nothing
observers of the debate to decide. But the larger point is that it is an accepted fact that "Maybellene" came from "Ida Red." I don't have Chuck's autobiography anymore, my dopey ex-wife loaned it to Dave Brigatti like 35 years ago, and I knew I'd neverThere was no demo of "Maybellene." The demo was called "Ida Mae," which Leonard Chess had Chuck change around to what eventually became "Maybelline." The people who participate in the debate don't get to judge who won the debate. That's up to the
Of course the demo was called "Ida Red." Just your attempt at obfuscation. And it has zero to do with our stances. So you admit your oft repeated stance that Chuck said himself that Maybellene was taken from Ida Red is unsubstantiated.
I do have Chuck's autobiography, but not in my apartment, but I can assure you there's no quote where he says one was taken from the other. Based on or adapted from, maybe.
So you still lost the debate. Chuck's Maybellene was an original.
On Tuesday, 24 October 2023 at 15:07:37 UTC+1, Bruce wrote:
We're not even close to being qualified to say whether one song was taken from another here, although Chuck himself said it was, and first recorded it with mainly the "Ida Red" lyrics. Jim agrees, and that's good enough for me.
You've said Chuck himself said it was numerous times, so can you please produce a quote from Chuck where he says so.
On Tuesday, 24 October 2023 at 15:07:37 UTC+1, Bruce wrote:
We're not even close to being qualified to say whether one song was taken from another here, although Chuck himself said it was, and first recorded it with mainly the "Ida Red" lyrics. Jim agrees, and that's good enough for me.
On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 4:53:16 PM UTC-4, Bill B wrote:stand on and you have lost this debate.
On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 4:32:50 PM UTC-4, Bruce wrote:
Bill B wrote:
No, "according to Berry" will not do. And your above quote does not clearly refer to the finished "Maybellene," but to the original demo. So you have failed to produce a Berry quote and have misrepresented Jim's position. I'd say you have nothing to
observers of the debate to decide. But the larger point is that it is an accepted fact that "Maybellene" came from "Ida Red." I don't have Chuck's autobiography anymore, my dopey ex-wife loaned it to Dave Brigatti like 35 years ago, and I knew I'd never
There was no demo of "Maybellene." The demo was called "Ida Mae," which Leonard Chess had Chuck change around to what eventually became "Maybelline." The people who participate in the debate don't get to judge who won the debate. That's up to the
----------Of course the demo was called "Ida Red." Just your attempt at obfuscation. And it has zero to do with our stances. So you admit your oft repeated stance that Chuck said himself that Maybellene was taken from Ida Red is unsubstantiated.
Why is "according to Berry" not enough for you?
It just means that nobody who was a writer happened to hear him say that and take an actual quote. But "according to Berry" certainly means that he confirmed that fact.
I do have Chuck's autobiography, but not in my apartment, but I can assure you there's no quote where he says one was taken from the other. Based on or adapted from, maybe.
Page 143
Later when I learned, upon entering a recording contract, that
original songs written by a person were copyrighted and had various
rewards for the composer, I welcomed the legal arrangement of the
music business. I enjoyed creating songs of my own and was pleased to
learn I could have some return from the effort. When I wrote
"Maybellene" I had originally titled it "Ida May/' but when I took the
song to Chess Records I was advised to change its title. That was
simple because the rhythmic swing of the three syllables fit with many
other names. The music progression itself is close to
(yes, the search results for Page 143 are cut off at this point)
On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 11:11:54 PM UTC-4, RWC wrote:
Page 143
Later when I learned, upon entering a recording contract, that
original songs written by a person were copyrighted and had various rewards for the composer, I welcomed the legal arrangement of the
music business. I enjoyed creating songs of my own and was pleased to learn I could have some return from the effort. When I wrote
"Maybellene" I had originally titled it "Ida May/' but when I took the song to Chess Records I was advised to change its title. That was
simple because the rhythmic swing of the three syllables fit with many other names. The music progression itself is close to
(yes, the search results for Page 143 are cut off at this point)The paragraph earlier, Berry introduces the topic with this line:
"'Maybellene' was written out of the inspiration that grew out of the country song 'Ida Red'."
That line will not satisfy either side in this debate.
There's no dispute here that Maybellene was based on or adapted
in part from Ida Red, just whether or not Maybellene is an original
in its presented form.
On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 3:58:42 PM UTC-4, Bill B wrote:
There's no dispute here that Maybellene was based on or adaptedFrom what I can see, both sides in this debate agree on the basic facts:
in part from Ida Red, just whether or not Maybellene is an original
in its presented form.
1) The composition of Maybellene borrows from Ida Red
2) Berry made multiple and important creative additions to the song
Leonard listened to my tape and when he heard one hillbilly selectionI'd included called "Ida May," played back on the one mike, one-track
THAT PARTICULAR SONG,
and he scheduled a recording session for May 21, 1955, promising me a contract at that time.
If there is a point of the argument beyond the basic facts, perhaps both sides should stop debating those facts and instead debate whatever it is you are actually disagreeing on.
I just requested "Chuck Berry: The Autobiography" (1988) from the Queens >Public Library. We'll get to the bottom of this trivial dispute.
On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 4:53:16 PM UTC-4, Bill B wrote:
Taken from and adapted means it's NOT an original.
Definition - Original - created directly and personally by a particular artist;
It wasn't created "directly," is was taken from "Ida Red" and adapted into "Maybellene."
On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 3:58:42 PM UTC-4, Bill B wrote:
There's no dispute here that Maybellene was based on or adaptedFrom what I can see, both sides in this debate agree on the basic facts:
in part from Ida Red, just whether or not Maybellene is an original
in its presented form.
1) The composition of Maybellene borrows from Ida Red
2) Berry made multiple and important creative additions to the song
If there is a point of the argument beyond the basic facts, perhaps both sides should stop debating those facts and instead debate whatever it is you are actually disagreeing on.
I just requested "Chuck Berry: The Autobiography" (1988) from the Queens Public Library. We'll get to the bottom of this trivial dispute.
On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 11:52:46 PM UTC-4, Bob Roman wrote:
1) The composition of Maybellene borrows from Ida Red
2) Berry made multiple and important creative additions to the song
From the story as told the only changes he made from the demo of "Ida May" were in the lyrics. I assume "Ida May" was already done at the same tempo that "Maybellene" was done at.
On Wednesday, October 25, 2023 at 12:11:29 AM UTC-4, Bruce wrote:
On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 11:52:46 PM UTC-4, Bob Roman wrote:
1) The composition of Maybellene borrows from Ida Red
2) Berry made multiple and important creative additions to the song
From the story as told the only changes he made from the demo of "Ida May" were in the lyrics. I assume "Ida May" was already done at the same tempo that "Maybellene" was done at.
If you are saying that Berry and/or Chess did not introduce R&B elements to the record, I have to disagree. There is a reason why Maybellene is among the songs considered "the 1st R&R record."
Everyone seems to accept Jim as the resident expect on this subject. Maybe we should ask him.
On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 9:03:14 PM UTC-4, DianeE wrote:--------
I just requested "Chuck Berry: The Autobiography" (1988) from the Queens
Public Library. We'll get to the bottom of this trivial dispute.
It's not trivial to me when one of my life altering recordings is dismissed as a rip-off of another recording.
BTW, the other life altering recordings was "Earth Angel."
On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 6:13:36 PM UTC-4, Bruce wrote:
On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 4:53:16 PM UTC-4, Bill B wrote:
Taken from and adapted means it's NOT an original.
Definition - Original - created directly and personally by a particular artist;
It wasn't created "directly," is was taken from "Ida Red" and adapted into "Maybellene."To me, an "original" would be a recording that would prevail in court or in the court of public opinion.
I believe Chuck's recording has already effectively prevailed in court because there has never been a single legal challenge brought to its originality. And I believe it has prevailed in the court of public opinion in this group.
On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 11:52:46 PM UTC-4, Bob Roman wrote:
On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 3:58:42 PM UTC-4, Bill B wrote:
There's no dispute here that Maybellene was based on or adaptedFrom what I can see, both sides in this debate agree on the basic facts:
in part from Ida Red, just whether or not Maybellene is an original
in its presented form.
1) The composition of Maybellene borrows from Ida Red
2) Berry made multiple and important creative additions to the song
If there is a point of the argument beyond the basic facts, perhaps both sides should stop debating those facts and instead debate whatever it is you are actually disagreeing on.
It's my contention that Chuck's "Maybellene" is an original. Obfuscation is Bruce's tactic to make it unclear what we are arguing about. He introduces various points to deflect from the actual argument.
On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 9:03:14 PM UTC-4, DianeE wrote:
I just requested "Chuck Berry: The Autobiography" (1988) from the Queens Public Library. We'll get to the bottom of this trivial dispute.
It's not trivial to me when one of my life altering recordings is dismissed as a rip-off of another recording.
If you read the other thread Jim has already said that they are the same song and the only difference is that "Maybellene" starts with the chorus
and the Bob Wills "Ida Red" starts with the verse. That's why I posted the Chris Powell version since that also starts with the chorus.
On Wednesday, October 25, 2023 at 11:08:50 AM UTC-4, Bruce wrote:
If you read the other thread Jim has already said that they are the same song and the only difference is that "Maybellene" starts with the chorus and the Bob Wills "Ida Red" starts with the verse. That's why I posted the Chris Powell version since that also starts with the chorus.
That was in reference to composition. A record is also arrangement and production.
Johnson's piano, Dixon's bass, and even Berry's guitar, lean to R&B. And I don't think Jerome Green's maracas would have fit well on a Charlie Poole record.
On 10/25/2023 10:49 AM, DianeE wrote:
On 10/25/2023 6:22 AM, Bill B wrote:-----------
On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 9:03:14 PM UTC-4, DianeE wrote:--------
I just requested "Chuck Berry: The Autobiography" (1988) from the Queens >>> Public Library. We'll get to the bottom of this trivial dispute.
It's not trivial to me when one of my life altering recordings is
dismissed as a rip-off of another recording.
BTW, the other life altering recordings was "Earth Angel."
Well, the record I consider life-altering is "Rock Around The Clock." It isn't one iota less life-altering because (as I discovered many years later) the guitar break is an exact copy of the one from a previous BH &
C record.
Not to mention the original, rather anemic version by Sonny Dae & His Knights. Same melody, same lyrics, but in no way life-changing. Also
didn't find out about this till many years later, also does not in any
way diminish my love for the Bill Haley version.
My favorite record of all time, "Still A Fool" by Muddy Waters, borrows >heavily not only from his own previous recordings but also from records
by other blues artists that he heard in his youth.
On 10/25/2023 6:22 AM, Bill B wrote:-----------
On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 9:03:14 PM UTC-4, DianeE wrote:--------
I just requested "Chuck Berry: The Autobiography" (1988) from the Queens >>> Public Library. We'll get to the bottom of this trivial dispute.
It's not trivial to me when one of my life altering recordings is
dismissed as a rip-off of another recording.
BTW, the other life altering recordings was "Earth Angel."
Well, the record I consider life-altering is "Rock Around The Clock." It isn't one iota less life-altering because (as I discovered many years
later) the guitar break is an exact copy of the one from a previous BH &
C record.
On 10/25/2023 6:22 AM, Bill B wrote:
On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 9:03:14 PM UTC-4, DianeE wrote:
I just requested "Chuck Berry: The Autobiography" (1988) from the Queens >> Public Library. We'll get to the bottom of this trivial dispute.
It's not trivial to me when one of my life altering recordings is dismissed as a rip-off of another recording.
BTW, the other life altering recordings was "Earth Angel."--------
Well, the record I consider life-altering is "Rock Around The Clock."
It isn't one iota less life-altering because (as I discovered many years later) the guitar break is an exact copy of the one from a previous BH &
C record.
How disingenuous can you be?
The song goes back to the Civil War and is public domain. That's why there's never been a lawsuit. Jim said this in the other thread already.
Bill, you're a hypocrite with this stuff. You break your own rule with this all the time, including with "Maybellene," which would have lost the law suit if the publisher of "Ida Red" had sued.
On Wed, 25 Oct 2023 10:49:02 -0400, DianeE <Dia...@NoSpam.net> wrote:
My favorite record of all time, "Still A Fool" by Muddy Waters, borrows >heavily not only from his own previous recordings but also from recordsWe must hear Diane's favorite record of all time:
by other blues artists that he heard in his youth.
Muddy Waters – Still A Fool [Chess 1480] - 1951 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vd1IOcdY9KM
On Wednesday, October 25, 2023 at 11:09:41 AM UTC-4, Bruce wrote:
How disingenuous can you be?
The song goes back to the Civil War and is public domain. That's why there's never been a lawsuit. Jim said this in the other thread already.Then why did you say the following in that other thread:
Bill, you're a hypocrite with this stuff. You break your own rule with this all the time, including with "Maybellene," which would have lost the law suit if the publisher of "Ida Red" had sued.
On Wednesday, October 25, 2023 at 6:22:51 AM UTC-4, Bill B wrote:to me, only the truth is.
On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 9:03:14 PM UTC-4, DianeE wrote:
I just requested "Chuck Berry: The Autobiography" (1988) from the Queens Public Library. We'll get to the bottom of this trivial dispute.
It's not trivial to me when one of my life altering recordings is dismissed as a rip-off of another recording.That's what the problem is here. You are not arguing the facts. You are arguing to preserve an emotional feeling that you have about the record. I don't have any stake in this. I'm just arguing the facts. Whether it's original or not is not important
Lyrics are very important to you, and the lyrics are certainly original. Isn't that enough for you?
And the lyrics are only original because Leonard Chess told Chuck to change the lyrics away from the country hillbilly feel they originally had on the "Ida Red" recording thy did and make them instead about a girl, teenagers, cars, etc...
On Wednesday, October 25, 2023 at 3:49:26 PM UTC-4, Bruce wrote:
And the lyrics are only original because Leonard Chess told Chuck to change the lyrics away from the country hillbilly feel they originally had on the "Ida Red" recording thy did and make them instead about a girl, teenagers, cars, etc...You do know what a demo is, don't you? Chuck was showing what he could do. He wasn't proposing to issue the record as presented.
On Wednesday, October 25, 2023 at 12:12:53 PM UTC-4, Bruce wrote:
On Wednesday, October 25, 2023 at 11:55:26 AM UTC-4, Bob Roman wrote:
That was in reference to composition. A record is also arrangement and production.
You can only sue for composition. Courts ruled back in the 50s that you can'tYou are discussing legalities and copyright. But is anyone else?
sue for arrangement and production.
Yes, copyright protection is limited to composition. But discussions of artistry are not.
On Wednesday, October 25, 2023 at 11:55:26 AM UTC-4, Bob Roman wrote:
That was in reference to composition. A record is also arrangement and production.
You can only sue for composition. Courts ruled back in the 50s that you can't
sue for arrangement and production.
On Wednesday, October 25, 2023 at 6:22:02 PM UTC-4, Bob Roman wrote:and they don't sound alike at all. Such as:
On Wednesday, October 25, 2023 at 12:12:53 PM UTC-4, Bruce wrote:
On Wednesday, October 25, 2023 at 11:55:26 AM UTC-4, Bob Roman wrote:You are discussing legalities and copyright. But is anyone else?
That was in reference to composition. A record is also arrangement and production.
You can only sue for composition. Courts ruled back in the 50s that you can't
sue for arrangement and production.
Yes, copyright protection is limited to composition. But discussions of artistry are not.
The discussion was never about artistry as far as I was concerned. Maybe it was to Bill. For me it was about whether "Maybellene" was an original composition or not. There are lots of cases where an act does a new version of someone else's composition
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QkF3oxziUI4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3WfoccRna6I
On Wednesday, October 25, 2023 at 12:12:53 PM UTC-4, Bruce wrote:-------------
On Wednesday, October 25, 2023 at 11:55:26 AM UTC-4, Bob Roman wrote:
That was in reference to composition. A record is also arrangement and production.
You can only sue for composition. Courts ruled back in the 50s that you can't
sue for arrangement and production.
You are discussing legalities and copyright. But is anyone else?
Yes, copyright protection is limited to composition. But discussions of artistry are not.
As I said three posts ago, the disagreements in this argument are not over matters of fact. They are over which facts are relevant. Progress in the argument will only come when that question is addressed.
The root of the disagreement is Bill's insistence that a record cannot
be great (a "10" was the original assertion) if it is in whole or in
part a remake of an earlier recording.
On Wednesday, October 25, 2023 at 6:27:59 PM UTC-4, Bruce wrote:
The discussion was never about artistry as far as I was concerned. Maybe it was to Bill.
There's my point in a nutshell. You are not having the same conversation.
The discussion was never about artistry as far as I was concerned. Maybe it was to Bill.
The root of the disagreement is Bill's insistence that a record cannot
be great (a "10" was the original assertion) if it is in whole or in
part a remake of an earlier recording.
On Wednesday, October 25, 2023 at 8:20:37 PM UTC-4, DianeE wrote:anything for lack of originality.
The root of the disagreement is Bill's insistence that a record cannot
be great (a "10" was the original assertion) if it is in whole or in
part a remake of an earlier recording.
I don't know what gave you that impression. It couldn't have been anything I said. My stance is I deduct points from my rating if the lack of originality bothers me. If it doesn't, I don't. I don't know if I'd give RATC a ten, but I wouldn't deduct
On 10/26/2023 5:56 AM, Bill B wrote:anything for lack of originality.
On Wednesday, October 25, 2023 at 8:20:37 PM UTC-4, DianeE wrote:
The root of the disagreement is Bill's insistence that a record cannot
be great (a "10" was the original assertion) if it is in whole or in
part a remake of an earlier recording.
I don't know what gave you that impression. It couldn't have been anything I said. My stance is I deduct points from my rating if the lack of originality bothers me. If it doesn't, I don't. I don't know if I'd give RATC a ten, but I wouldn't deduct
----------
When you started the thread about ranking artists by number of 10's you explicitly said that you yourself don't rank records. I can understand
that, I'm not crazy about ranking them either, but I know a 10 when I
hear it. Anyhow, if you don't give them numerical grades, how can you
be deducting points? I thought that was Bruce's phrase, "deduct points."
So you're saying that lack of originality ruins the record for you
sometimes but not always? Well, I can relate to that, I guess, because that's how I feel about stupid lyrics. Sometimes I can ignore them but sometimes they annoy me so much that I can't stand listening to the record.
On Wednesday, October 25, 2023 at 8:20:37 PM UTC-4, DianeE wrote:
anything for lack of originality.The root of the disagreement is Bill's insistence that a record cannot
be great (a "10" was the original assertion) if it is in whole or in
part a remake of an earlier recording.
I don't know what gave you that impression. It couldn't have been anything I said. My stance is I deduct points from my rating if the lack of originality bothers me. If it doesn't, I don't. I don't know if I'd give RATC a ten, but I wouldn't deduct
On Thursday, October 26, 2023 at 5:56:25 AM UTC-4, Bill B wrote:
On Wednesday, October 25, 2023 at 8:20:37 PM UTC-4, DianeE wrote:
anything for lack of originality.The root of the disagreement is Bill's insistence that a record cannot be great (a "10" was the original assertion) if it is in whole or in part a remake of an earlier recording.
I don't know what gave you that impression. It couldn't have been anything I said. My stance is I deduct points from my rating if the lack of originality bothers me. If it doesn't, I don't. I don't know if I'd give RATC a ten, but I wouldn't deduct
LOL, only if it "bothers" you. I see.
On Thursday, October 26, 2023 at 1:47:39 PM UTC-4, Bill B wrote:
On Thursday, October 26, 2023 at 11:34:43 AM UTC-4, Bruce wrote:
On Thursday, October 26, 2023 at 5:56:25 AM UTC-4, Bill B wrote:
On Wednesday, October 25, 2023 at 8:20:37 PM UTC-4, DianeE wrote:
deduct anything for lack of originality.The root of the disagreement is Bill's insistence that a record cannot
be great (a "10" was the original assertion) if it is in whole or in part a remake of an earlier recording.
I don't know what gave you that impression. It couldn't have been anything I said. My stance is I deduct points from my rating if the lack of originality bothers me. If it doesn't, I don't. I don't know if I'd give RATC a ten, but I wouldn't
unoriginal as long as it doesn't "bother you." So there's really no rule about a deduction for unoriginality. You merely react to each recording as it hits you, just like the rest of us. You just use the "unoriginality" thing to sometimes explain whyLOL, only if it "bothers" you. I see.
This is a personal rating system, is it not? That means I set the parameters. You don't have any say in how I react to a recording. And your constant moaning about my subjectivity versus your desired objectivity is meaningless.My moaning is about your constantly breaking your own rules. Now the deduction for unoriginality is only "if it bothers you." At one point years ago you said that you deducted points for things that were not original. Now you're saying that it can be
There you go again, trying to tell me what my thought process is. I never had a "rule." Over time, I tried to more fully explain my position. But you are apparently too dense to grasp those explanations because they do not conform to your rigidity.
On Thursday, October 26, 2023 at 11:34:43 AM UTC-4, Bruce wrote:
On Thursday, October 26, 2023 at 5:56:25 AM UTC-4, Bill B wrote:
On Wednesday, October 25, 2023 at 8:20:37 PM UTC-4, DianeE wrote:
anything for lack of originality.The root of the disagreement is Bill's insistence that a record cannot be great (a "10" was the original assertion) if it is in whole or in part a remake of an earlier recording.
I don't know what gave you that impression. It couldn't have been anything I said. My stance is I deduct points from my rating if the lack of originality bothers me. If it doesn't, I don't. I don't know if I'd give RATC a ten, but I wouldn't deduct
LOL, only if it "bothers" you. I see.
This is a personal rating system, is it not? That means I set the parameters. You don't have any say in how I react to a recording. And your constant moaning about my subjectivity versus your desired objectivity is meaningless.
On Thursday, October 26, 2023 at 3:04:24 PM UTC-4, Bill B wrote:
There you go again, trying to tell me what my thought process is. I never had a "rule." Over time, I tried to more fully explain my position. But you are apparently too dense to grasp those explanations because they do not conform to your rigidity.That was your problem, trying to "explain" positions. How you feel about a particular recording is a visceral thing. There are no logical explanations.
On Thursday, October 26, 2023 at 4:15:10 PM UTC-4, Bill B wrote:rigidity.
On Thursday, October 26, 2023 at 3:11:06 PM UTC-4, Bruce wrote:
On Thursday, October 26, 2023 at 3:04:24 PM UTC-4, Bill B wrote:
There you go again, trying to tell me what my thought process is. I never had a "rule." Over time, I tried to more fully explain my position. But you are apparently too dense to grasp those explanations because they do not conform to your
That was your problem, trying to "explain" positions. How you feel about a particular recording is a visceral thing. There are no logical explanations.
Unless you make a conscious decision that you are bothered by the lack of originality or the laziness or the outright plagiarism displayed.Are you saying that you can viscerally like one recording better than another, but you can consciously override that visceral feeling if you are bothered by the lack of originality or the laziness or the outright plagiarism displayed?
That's just a rationalization. Either that always bothers you or it never does. You can't pick and choose when to enforce the lack of originality or the laziness or the outright plagiarism clause.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-LH0iKKAEj8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xN9KpmTIhos
Plus you are limited by your own knowledge. What happens if you hear a great record that you love, but years later find out that it's not the original version of the song, and after hearing the original you are bothered by the lack of originality orthe laziness or the outright plagiarism displayed?
This must have happened to you at some point, especially hanging around here all these years where you would find out about earlier versions that you had never heard before. Is there an instance you can think of where you changed your opinion on arecord after discovering an earlier version of the same song?
On Thursday, October 26, 2023 at 4:15:10 PM UTC-4, Bill B wrote:rigidity.
On Thursday, October 26, 2023 at 3:11:06 PM UTC-4, Bruce wrote:
On Thursday, October 26, 2023 at 3:04:24 PM UTC-4, Bill B wrote:
There you go again, trying to tell me what my thought process is. I never had a "rule." Over time, I tried to more fully explain my position. But you are apparently too dense to grasp those explanations because they do not conform to your
That was your problem, trying to "explain" positions. How you feel about a particular recording is a visceral thing. There are no logical explanations.
Unless you make a conscious decision that you are bothered by the lack of originality or the laziness or the outright plagiarism displayed.
Are you saying that you can viscerally like one recording better than another, but you can consciously override that visceral feeling if you are bothered by the lack of originality or the laziness or the outright plagiarism displayed?
That's just a rationalization. Either that always bothers you or it never does. You can't pick and choose when to enforce the lack of originality or the laziness or the outright plagiarism clause.
On Thursday, October 26, 2023 at 3:11:06 PM UTC-4, Bruce wrote:
On Thursday, October 26, 2023 at 3:04:24 PM UTC-4, Bill B wrote:
There you go again, trying to tell me what my thought process is. I never had a "rule." Over time, I tried to more fully explain my position. But you are apparently too dense to grasp those explanations because they do not conform to your rigidity.That was your problem, trying to "explain" positions. How you feel about a particular recording is a visceral thing. There are no logical explanations.
Unless you make a conscious decision that you are bothered by the lack of originality or the laziness or the outright plagiarism displayed.
On Thursday, October 26, 2023 at 4:44:09 PM UTC-4, Bruce wrote:the laziness or the outright plagiarism displayed?
Plus you are limited by your own knowledge. What happens if you hear a great record that you love, but years later find out that it's not the original version of the song, and after hearing the original you are bothered by the lack of originality or
record after discovering an earlier version of the same song?This must have happened to you at some point, especially hanging around here all these years where you would find out about earlier versions that you had never heard before. Is there an instance you can think of where you changed your opinion on a
I do think less of Johnny Cash's "Folsom Prison Blues" since I learned about the original but, since I don't rate records, I haven't made any quantifiable adjustments.
On Thursday, October 26, 2023 at 4:39:31 PM UTC-4, Bruce wrote:rigidity.
On Thursday, October 26, 2023 at 4:15:10 PM UTC-4, Bill B wrote:
On Thursday, October 26, 2023 at 3:11:06 PM UTC-4, Bruce wrote:
On Thursday, October 26, 2023 at 3:04:24 PM UTC-4, Bill B wrote:
There you go again, trying to tell me what my thought process is. I never had a "rule." Over time, I tried to more fully explain my position. But you are apparently too dense to grasp those explanations because they do not conform to your
That was your problem, trying to "explain" positions. How you feel about a particular recording is a visceral thing. There are no logical explanations.
Unless you make a conscious decision that you are bothered by the lack of originality or the laziness or the outright plagiarism displayed.
Are you saying that you can viscerally like one recording better than another, but you can consciously override that visceral feeling if you are bothered by the lack of originality or the laziness or the outright plagiarism displayed?
That's just a rationalization. Either that always bothers you or it never does. You can't pick and choose when to enforce the lack of originality or the laziness or the outright plagiarism clause.Yes, I am saying that. And sometimes it can bother me and other times it may not. And yes I can choose, I can do whatever I want. Enforce is the wrong word.
A follow up question for you (and Roger). Since your personal tastes must have evolved over the years, do you reevaluate the ratings you initially assigned to the thousands of records you have rated?
On Thursday, October 26, 2023 at 4:56:06 PM UTC-4, Bill B wrote:or the laziness or the outright plagiarism displayed?
On Thursday, October 26, 2023 at 4:44:09 PM UTC-4, Bruce wrote:
Plus you are limited by your own knowledge. What happens if you hear a great record that you love, but years later find out that it's not the original version of the song, and after hearing the original you are bothered by the lack of originality
record after discovering an earlier version of the same song?This must have happened to you at some point, especially hanging around here all these years where you would find out about earlier versions that you had never heard before. Is there an instance you can think of where you changed your opinion on a
I do think less of Johnny Cash's "Folsom Prison Blues" since I learned about the original but, since I don't rate records, I haven't made any quantifiable adjustments.
A follow up question for you (and Roger). Since your personal tastes must have evolved over the years, do you reevaluate the ratings you initially assigned to the thousands of records you have rated?
On Thursday, 26 October 2023 at 22:31:50 UTC+1, Bill B wrote:or the laziness or the outright plagiarism displayed?
On Thursday, October 26, 2023 at 4:56:06 PM UTC-4, Bill B wrote:
On Thursday, October 26, 2023 at 4:44:09 PM UTC-4, Bruce wrote:
Plus you are limited by your own knowledge. What happens if you hear a great record that you love, but years later find out that it's not the original version of the song, and after hearing the original you are bothered by the lack of originality
a record after discovering an earlier version of the same song?This must have happened to you at some point, especially hanging around here all these years where you would find out about earlier versions that you had never heard before. Is there an instance you can think of where you changed your opinion on
I don't take any notice of the fact that Cash's "Folsom.." is a definite steal other than to remark on the fact. It makes no difference whatsoever to my listening pleasure nor to the way I rank it (a 9)I do think less of Johnny Cash's "Folsom Prison Blues" since I learned about the original but, since I don't rate records, I haven't made any quantifiable adjustments.
A follow up question for you (and Roger). Since your personal tastes must have evolved over the years, do you reevaluate the ratings you initially assigned to the thousands of records you have rated?All the time
I pretty well follow the same path that Bruce has outlined. Sometimes a record will go up a grade other times down same way. Hardly ever more than a single number change. It's a while since I re-graded something as a new "10".
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 484 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 50:23:36 |
| Calls: | 9,627 |
| Files: | 13,695 |
| Messages: | 6,159,489 |
| Posted today: | 1 |
