Architects often deliberately reference previous buildings in little design games that only other architects appreciate. There are more than 200 references to previous Modernist buildings in the extension to the Stockmann Department store completed over a decade ago.
If you make something personal and original that affects others, it will be associated with you. It will become part of you. Like the Jackie O pill box hat. It doesn't stop anyone else from wearing a pill box hat, but it may be understood as a reference, as a resonance.
The only reason that music copyright still exists is because the industry business model has evolved in the way it has, starting with sheet music sales for the Strausses et al. It has evolved in the way it has because once large sums of money were to be made, the lawyers moved in and screwed everyone in key. It is an industry still replete of lawyers, hoods, bouncers, thieves and con-men. It is time music was rid of them. Some of it is no better than New World Order professional wrestling.
What is needed is a new type of music business since, I think we would agree, that people will make music whatever happens, and others will gather to take part in it. Music won't disappear, even if the industry does.
I am interested to see what the new music culture will be like. There are many different approaches visible right now. Maybe all of them will be part of the new model, who knows. Maybe none. You can't be me, I'm taken
And you're still confusing references with repetition. Copying a building exactly is indeed a stupid, which is why no one does it.
Copying music closely is less stupid, which is why you can find cover bands in pubs all over the planet, and tribute bands who make a reasonable if not very interesting living reproducing familiar music for nostalgic audiences.
Those experiences certainly have a financial value, even if they're not necessarily at the creative cutting edge.
If there wer no original creative source for them to copy, that financial value wouldn't exist, which suggests there may in fact be rather more happening than a rancid and out of date attempt to copy the sheet music business model.
The Jackie O pill box hat is a silly argument, because it's a mass produced item of clothing, set in a market with a very different culture - fashion is based almost exclusively on top down imitation of celebrity for the sake of it, with no other content - and a very different business model.
No one is going to create a new music culture until people start being more realistic about what makes music valuable. Currently we have an idiotic industry on one side which believes that it's all about a product which might as well be indistinguishable from sandwiches or machine bolts as far as the execs are concerned, and equally idiotic freetards on the other who believe that copying files and using them as the background to a shaky Youtube video of someone having a painful accident makes them heroes of the imminent Open Cultural Revolution.
Neither side understands what music is, what it's for, or why paying musicians to be original might be a good idea.
Until that changes music will continue to be boring - which it surely is at the moment - and we'll entertain ourselves with exciting stories about lawsuits rather than exciting and original creativity.
But at least we agree on the terrible mess of the present music industry and, I hope, the need to change it. You can't be me, I'm taken
