Some of the greatest fanfiction ever written.Quote:
Originally Posted by stlukesguild
Some of the greatest fanfiction ever written.Quote:
Originally Posted by stlukesguild
The difference, I think, is that Dylan got the credit and the royalties for Hendrix's version. I don't think the Bronte estate received any proportion of the revenue on Wide Sargasso Sea.Quote:
Originally Posted by Drkshadow03
And why should it? The book isn't a cover version (same chords,same words, same structure); it's a development of an aspect of the original. So I don't think the analogy with covering songs really applies.
A recent example, by the way, would be Jon Clinch's Finn.
It does apply when my main point is: "that people like writing and rewriting and continuing and responding to their favorite works. It's a completely normal thing to do."Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkBastable
It's not really meant to be an analogy so much as a demonstration that this goes on throughout all the arts. The fact that Hendrix might have to pay copyright is irrelevant to my point about the general impulse many artists feel to rewrite, continue, and respond to their favorite works. My point is that artists feel the need to do this, not what artists have to do if they want to do this.
By the way, Hendrix's version might have a lot of the same structure, chords, etc., but the two versions sound extremely different. Dylan's sounds folksy with his harmonica, while Hendrix's improvisations give it a funk-rock quality. Hendrix's version very much sounds like Hendrix doing his version of the song, and I think you do him discredit in basically implying its mostly just a one-for-one translation of Dylan's song.
Bronte's work by the time Jean Rhys was writing had fallen into the public domain, I would think. If it hadn't fallen into the public domain, she probably would've had to pay.
Ditto your Finn example. The reason they don't have to pay has nothing to do with the fact that these books are exploring some aspect of the work (hence still being derivative) and everything to do with the original works in question being in the public domain.
But nevertheless, as I already pointed out I don't see how money being exchanged has anything to do with my point about the general impulse of artists to rework to the material of other artists into their own vision or pay homage to artworks they enjoy.
Fair enough. My point, I think, is that developing an aspect of a story or taking a character out of the story into another one is a very different thing to interpreting a song in one's own style. There are differences of intention, of process and of creative involvement. And those differences are reflected in the applicability or otherwise of the royalty issue.Quote:
Originally Posted by Drkshadow03
I doubt anyone would have had to pay, because permission wouldn't have been given to do it. I can't think of any instance where a novel was under copyright and permission was given by the copyright holder for a some character or significant aspect of the novel to be used by another writer. The closest would be the commissioning of writers by the copyright holders to produce a further book in a series (Bond or, I think, Pooh).Quote:
Bronte's work by the time Jean Rhys was writing had fallen into the public domain, I would think. If it hadn't fallen into the public domain, she probably would've had to pay.
So I'm not disagreeing that the impulse is there to imitate, honour, develop or enhance favourite works. And I'm not saying that the royalties are the agent of a flaw in your argument. I'm saying that, for me at least, there's a fundamental creative difference between covering a pop song and writing a novel that references another - and the copyright system is the practical evidence of that difference.
I'd also point out that there is a difference between writing a novel that references another or many others (what are typically called allusions) and one that makes wholesale of some of the characters from another novel and presents itself as a prequel.Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkBastable
The reason Rhys didn't have to pay anything has absolutely NOTHING to do with different creative purposes, and everything to do with the fact that the work by the time Rhys wrote her book was in the public domain. I could publish my own copy of Jane Eyre word for word, and not have to pay royalties, which is why the entire thing is available here on Lit Network, literature.org, Project Gutenberg, etc. It's also why so many major publishers continue to print classics (they're free because they're in the public domain and they still sell well, which means a good profit margin).
Now it might be that Rhys changes enough that she would've been in the clear anyway (doesn't name Rochester, etc.); nevertheless, that is for a court of law to decide as there is tons of nuance to copyright law, but alas it never will go to a court of law because it's in the clear already due to it being public domain material. The actual discernible reason she didn't have to pay royalties is her book was written after Jane Eyre was already in the public domain. So it's a moot point. There is no way of testing out whether she would or wouldn't have gotten sued and whether the suit would've been successful or not.
So no offense, but you didn't actually prove anything. It doesn't prove that books of the sort you describe and music covers are essentially different from a copyright law perspective if you're using a work that didn't have to pay royalties to begin with for different reasons than the ones you stated as an example.
It is different from doing music covers. Generally you do music covers of songwriters who are still alive- and it's the same words and tune, simply sung a little differently. However with these 'reinterpretations' of classics, the original writers are generally dead so you can screw about with them and the poor dead writer can't do anything.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drkshadow03
...I wasn't trying to prove anything. I was simply saying - as a published novelist, as a songwriter and as a performing musician- that I felt that the two processes - writing a novel that borrows from an existing novel and covering a song by another artist - are very different processes, creatively and practically.
So I'm not offended - don't worry. Though I am a bit taken aback by your tone.
I've seen some pretty great classic literature adaptations in the comic book medium. The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen comes to mind.
They are different. When you write a pop or rock song, you have a chord progression and you have lyrics sung to a melody over that chord progression. Cover songs almost always replicate those core elements of the original creative process to produce a performance that is different. It is the very rare cover that dispenses with chord structure and melody to create an interpretation that only maintains the original lyrics and even then, the cover is still utilising a core creative element belonging to the original.Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkBastable
With that in mind, Hendrix's All Along The WatchTower is not a great example of a creative cover as it reproduces Dylan's lyrics and chord progression. It sounds different, sure, but that's largely due to the fact that instead of being sung (or intoned) by a middle aged Jewish man accompanied by an acoustic guitar and a harmonica, it's being bashed out by a guitar god with a wah-wah pedal and a good dose of overdrive.
In the case of the literary prequel or what have you, we are surely dealing with a different process: one of inspiration and influence. If I write a sequel to Bellow's ...Augie March (watch this space), I've got to supply the core creative elements of which a novel is comprised. Now of course, the character itself is one of those elements, but all I have is his name and his background. I can't replicate Bellow's inventive prose to re-imagine Augie. And without his prose, the means by which Bellow's novel was originally created, the bulk of the work is very much on me. I'm looking at a blank sheet of paper. Hendrix was looking at a chord chart and a lyrics sheet. There is a big difference.
Sure, as someone who has done his share of covers I get what you're saying. I would agree there is a difference between how one covers a song with the chords already there for you versus the amount of new material and creativity needed for writing a sequel/prequel/whatever. However, I don't think what inspires a writer to do a sequel to a novel they love and a musician to cover the material of another artists is essentially a different impulse--different processes after the fact when producing the work--but not what ultimately motivates them to do it, which stems back to some sort of love and interest in the work and a desire to do your own version.Quote:
Originally Posted by sixsmith
Also, you're underselling Hendrix's cover of All Along the Watchtower, which is a fantastic example of a creative cover. In fact, covers don't get more creative than that. The cover consistently wins in polls for best cover, is one of the few covers that has earned its place in rock's historical canon in its own right, is pretty much more famous than Dylan's version, and I believe Dylan has even gone on record as saying Hendrix's version is superior to his own version. Hendrix doesn't just take Dylan's version and take out the harmonica and adds a little overdub and wah-wah pedaling. He adds riffs throughout, makes it all heavier, plays around with the rhythm, adds one of the most memorable solos ever; he makes so many changes that even, though, yes you can still tell its the same song it feels almost like a completely different song simultaneously. The whole effect is different. Dylan's song feels sparse and folksy complimenting the sparse style of the lyrics, while Hendrix's version is heavy and strange and atmospheric, almost operatic in some ways, emphasizing and highlighting the strangeness of the lyrics.
Still identifiably the same song though.Quote:
Originally Posted by Drkshadow03
I heard Hendrix's first, but when I heard Dylan's (and XTC's) I knew within sixteen bars it was the same song. (Let's face it - it's a hackneyed chord sequence, but as soon as you hear "There must be some way out of here..." you know what you're dealing with.)
As inventive covers go, and although I don't like the song much, I'd give the prize to Joe Cocker's With a Little Help from My Friends, which rethinks a quaint and effective song for a man who can't sing and arranges it for the perspective of a man who can't do anything but.
What about literature?
I'll admit, I was rather shocked when I was browsing my local book store and saw a novel named Cosette a sequeal to Hugo's Les Miserables! I mean... If you want to write a story about a young French woman in that particular era, who is, according to the cover, trapped in a bad marriage and wanting to "find herself" blah blah blah, WHY does it have to be a character already created by someone else??
Judging by what the cover said, the characters of Cosette and Marius had no relation to the way they were portrayed by Hugo.
I think I made up my mind then, that I was not happy about this sort of literature. Then again, it might in fact be a great book. I just... don't really care to find out, because I find the concept rather silly.
Indeed. It's often just cashing in on another writer's work.
Isn't it? If you're too lazy to make up your own characters, why even write?
And yet, someone mentioned the whole problem of "ownership" of a work. Does Barthes' "Death of the Author" or the intentional fallacy have a relevance here? I mean, when analyzing a work, a prefer not to draw upon too much biographical details, if it can be avoided.
But where to draw the line, really... Because Les Miserables IS Hugo's work! ... Isn't it?
I'll ponder some more on that, I think...