Horatio Parker
Veteran Member
Horatio that is a good song. I like how Jazzy it sounds. The blues deconversion thread on the morrow I should start eh?
Ask any of those guys about blues.
Horatio that is a good song. I like how Jazzy it sounds. The blues deconversion thread on the morrow I should start eh?
that is not bad luck. that is bad judgement.Bad example I think. Having your ex14. Blues is not a matter of color. It's a matter of bad luck. Tiger Woods cannot sing the Blues.
a) attack you with a golf club
b) you having to pay her hundreds of millions of dollars
counts as bad luck in my book. Who knows, since he's no good at golf anymore music may be a second career for him.
Rather than repeating my most recent reply to Metaphor, I will link you to it and ask you the same questions I asked him.The report does not make an argument as why such claims of ownership are legitimate. It simply asserts that such ownership should be legally-recognised and afforded the protections offered by IP law.Since you made a broad wide statement in the absolute that "no-one can own a culture", I will submit a report which disagrees with your contention.
http://www.frankellawyers.com.au/media/report/culture.pdf
Starting with defining the why of the recognition of " Indigenous Cultural and Intellectual Property" duly illustrated in the introduction of Chapter 1 :
Indigenous Cultural and Intellectual Property Rights refers to Indigenous Australians rights to their Heritage. Such rights are also known as Indigenous Heritage Rights.
Heritage consists of the intangible and tangible aspects of the whole body of cultural practices, resources, and knowledge systems developed, nurtured and refined by Indigenous people and passed on by them as part of expressing their cultural identity.
Note the term "Property" which confirms the significance of "owning". I will await your counter argumentation to the above where I challenge you to demonstrate that there is no legitimate value to Heritage, no possible legitimate claim to Heritage and therefor no possible legitimate claim of Cultural and Intellectual Property Rights.
The above specifically challenges your broad wide applied statement which you formulated in the absolute :
No-one can own a culture
It certainly does not refute Metaphor's stated position.
The notion of cultural ownership is completely antithetical to cosmopolitan society, where people freely exchange ideas and develop upon them.
http://talkfreethought.org/showthre...erform-the-blues&p=80281&viewfull=1#post80281
The reason for your quote is not clear. Simply stipulating a definition of heritage is not reason for concluding that some people have ownership of some the ideas found within that heritage.The argument has been staring at you from the get go. Do you think that I quoted from Chapter 1 ,Since you made a broad wide statement in the absolute that "no-one can own a culture", I will submit a report which disagrees with your contention.
http://www.frankellawyers.com.au/media/report/culture.pdf
Starting with defining the why of the recognition of " Indigenous Cultural and Intellectual Property" duly illustrated in the introduction of Chapter 1 :
Indigenous Cultural and Intellectual Property Rights refers to Indigenous Australians rights to their Heritage. Such rights are also known as Indigenous Heritage Rights.
Heritage consists of the intangible and tangible aspects of the whole body of cultural practices, resources, and knowledge systems developed, nurtured and refined by Indigenous people and passed on by them as part of expressing their cultural identity.
Note the term "Property" which confirms the significance of "owning". I will await your counter argumentation to the above where I challenge you to demonstrate that there is no legitimate value to Heritage, no possible legitimate claim to Heritage and therefor no possible legitimate claim of Cultural and Intellectual Property Rights.
The above specifically challenges your broad wide applied statement which you formulated in the absolute :
No-one can own a culture
I am not going to read a 380 page report to see how (or if) it challenges my assumption. I want you to make an argument that someone can own a culture.
Indigenous Cultural and Intellectual Property Rights refers to Indigenous Australians rights to their Heritage. Such rights are also known as Indigenous Heritage Rights.
Heritage consists of the intangible and tangible aspects of the whole body of cultural practices, resources, and knowledge systems developed, nurtured and refined by Indigenous people and passed on by them as part of expressing their cultural identity.
for no reason at all?
I don;t know what you mean by 'legitimate value'. And without knowing that, the question is incoherent.Do you deny the legitimate value of Heritage?
The report is saying that those two things are one and the same, not that one is the source of the other. That is why it states that 'Indigenous Cultural and Intellectual Property Rights' is synonymous with 'Indigenous Heritage Rights'.Do you deny that Heritage is the source of the claim for Cultural and Intellectual Property?
You're just re-phrasing a tautology: the Heritage of Indigenous People is their Cultural and Intellectual Property. That's not an argument.Do you not understand why Heritage is the source of the claim for Cultural and Intellectual Property?
Unless you define 'legitimate value', this is incoherent.Which means that you reject the premise that based on the legitimate value of their Heritage, Indigenous people have a claim to Cultural and Intellectual Property.I reject the premise that anybody can own a culture.
I'm not.Are you somehow in disagreement that "owning a culture" is semantically similar to " Cultural and Intellectual Property"?
that is not bad luck. that is bad judgement.Bad example I think. Having your ex
a) attack you with a golf club
b) you having to pay her hundreds of millions of dollars
counts as bad luck in my book. Who knows, since he's no good at golf anymore music may be a second career for him.
that is not bad luck. that is bad judgement.Bad example I think. Having your ex
a) attack you with a golf club
b) you having to pay her hundreds of millions of dollars
counts as bad luck in my book. Who knows, since he's no good at golf anymore music may be a second career for him.
Reading all the posts arguing for one racial culture "owning" their heritage, I have to wonder if they would say that Charley Pride was robbing whites of their C&W cultural heritage.
When will we finally accept that we are all humans sharing our human heritage?
that is not bad luck. that is bad judgement.
A man makes his luck and bad judgment makes bad luck. Since Tiger's mother is from Thailand, he is allowed to sing the blues half the time, but must segue into Khon masked dance, the traditional theater of half his people.
You do realize that country music tracing its roots back not just to the folk songs of europe, but also to the reels played in slaves quarters across the south?
And?Reading all the posts arguing for one racial culture "owning" their heritage, I have to wonder if they would say that Charley Pride was robbing whites of their C&W cultural heritage.
When will we finally accept that we are all humans sharing our human heritage?
You do realize that country music tracing its roots back not just to the folk songs of europe, but also to the reels played in slaves quarters across the south?
And?You do realize that country music tracing its roots back not just to the folk songs of europe, but also to the reels played in slaves quarters across the south?
Are you saying that the originators of European folk songs and slaves in the south aren't part of humanity that contributed to humanity's heritage, a heritage that we should all embrace and enjoy? Why does there seem to be a need in this thread to divide humanity into segregated tribes at odds with each other?
And?
Are you saying that the originators of European folk songs and slaves in the south aren't part of humanity that contributed to humanity's heritage, a heritage that we should all embrace and enjoy? Why does there seem to be a need in this thread to divide humanity into segregated tribes at odds with each other?
What are you talking about?
I have stated how I felt on the subject. Go back and look.
For three years, while in my twenties, I sang with a band. We were a jazz band by trade, but from time to time we had to expand our repertoire. In that time I sang jazz, blues, soul, rock, folk, country, western swing, funk, bluegrass, gospel, and I do believe I may have even sung Verdi's Aida, all the parts, in its entirety one night in Charleston, but I'm not sure.
All I did with my post referencing yours was point out that CW music has black roots, That CW, really all American and even all World music is an amalgamation of every culture that comes in contact with said music. That is how music is. So you see I am not arguing with you. If anything I am agreeing with you.
Now I don't know what the Charlie Pride post was supposed to prove, if it was a genuine attempt at furthering discussion or a troll to start a fight but I assure that you if it was the latter, this is not the day and I am not the one.
I saw this album in the library of the Harlem Arts Alliance. I've always been curious about it, but it's only available in vinyl.
I saw this album in the library of the Harlem Arts Alliance. I've always been curious about it, but it's only available in vinyl.
And this is why we have USB turntables. Vinyl lives again!
And this is why we have USB turntables. Vinyl lives again!
True, but I can't get there. Technology wrt commercially available recordings has taken one too many turns for me...