PDF (Accepted Manuscript)
- Requires a PDF viewer such as GSview, Xpdf or Adobe Acrobat Reader
|DOI (Digital Object Identifier) Link:||http://doi.org/10.1177/0964663906060976|
|Google Scholar:||Look up in Google Scholar|
Shaped by a combination of romantic aesthetics and capitalist economics in the 19th century, the musical work was only enshrined in copyright law at the beginning of the 20th. However, even as the distinctiveness of the work was being legally inscribed, there emerged a new form of popular music making based on iteration. The recorded blues depended on continuity with other record-songs rather than the uniqueness of the individual work. Significantly, the phonographic orality at stake here was effectively unregulated, with 'plagiarism' being tolerated. The contrast is then with the hip hop genre. This has the same iterative mode as the blues, yet with the later style rights owners have become quite litigious, and now guard their symbolic property jealously. Focusing on the USA this article examines the differences between the two moments of blues and hip hop by analysing some key music copyright cases. It argues that despite stronger legal scrutiny of phonographic oral production in the contemporary period, this does not represent straightforward censorship in the way suggested by some commentators. Rather recent cases show the deep contradictions in copyright law between principles of uniqueness and tolerable continuity, and between the codification of physical sound and formal structure in music. These contradictions are inherent in the capitalist organization of music making, and are not susceptible to any quick policy fix.
|Item Type:||Journal Article|
|Copyright Holders:||2006 The Author|
|Keywords:||authorship; blues; capitalism; copyright; hip hop; Marxism; musical work|
|Academic Unit/Department:||Social Sciences > Sociology
|Depositing User:||Users 6043 not found.|
|Date Deposited:||04 Jul 2006|
|Last Modified:||24 Feb 2016 06:42|
|Share this page:|
Download history for this item
These details should be considered as only a guide to the number of downloads performed manually. Algorithmic methods have been applied in an attempt to remove automated downloads from the displayed statistics but no guarantee can be made as to the accuracy of the figures.