A quote from one of my past poems called the Sacred 3
"He is me. I am He. We are 2 out of the three"
When I wrote the words I truly thought they were original. The simple rhyme came to me while I was driving to Pasadena and I loved the simple truth conveyed in the three lines. I still very much believe in what I wrote. But thats neither here nor there as far as this post is concerned. Later I was listening to Niggy Tardust.
Saul Williams from DNA
"I am you. You are me. But also I am He. Sheperd of a bastard flock that grazes in the streets. "
I instantly felt guilty. Oh shit. My poetry rhyme was not my own! Both set of lines (Saul's and mine) chiefly discuss the sacred 3 connection and in addition they even had a very similar rhyme scheme with the long E sound being stressed "me, he, etc". Its obvious that Saul is making a reference to the Christ/Father mythology when he goes on to refer to himself as "a shepherd" So instantly I tipped my hat to Saul Williams! He is deep! But than I had to ask myself, did I jock subconsciously, or did I just create something similar, but independent from, they lyrics I knew and loved. I never posted because I really didnt think anyone cared. No one posted a response to my Sacred 3 poem so I almost wondered if anyone liked it, or cared if I accidentally plagiarized within it. However, regardless if people enjoy poems, hate them, or whatever, I have utmost integrity regarding writing and I will not stand for being one of those lame poetry/lyric writers who get credit for simply rewriting old material in their own name! That is not my style at all and I think all artists that do this, without at least acknowledging the initial inspiration/source should all be held accountable for their lies and bullshit fame. So I decided I would sit and think more of this Sacred 3 connection/copyright infringement. I kind of put it on the back burner. Than yesterday I was listening to the Beatles. Well what do you know...........
From I am the Walrus, by the Beatles
"I am He. As you are he. As you are me. And we are all together"
Well there it is. It seems Paul McCartney had beaten both Saul and I to the Sacred 3 punch. I know for sure Ive listened to that song many many times during all sorts of states of mental expansion (wink wink) so for sure the image must have been instilled upon me from not the Bible, not Saul, but who would of thunk it, the straight up Beatles. Ok so where does this leave my accidental lyrical abduction? Id say Im in the clear. Saul copied it first! I guess the Beatles are so iconic/mainstream that one cant help accidentally quoting one of their lines. Besides if its done in a tasteful and clean way than Id say its a great way to pay homage to the spirit of the original source. At least Im actually stating who is the original source (as far as music is concerned, I think Paul may owe just a little bit of inspiration to Christ himself....haha) unlike Saul Williams who makes no note of Beatles influence. Saul....you got some splainin' to do! Haha. Still love the guy though. Thats all for now folks. Hope your having an absolutely wonderful Sunday. I sit here and listen to the MUSE, I look out my window as Ive done so many times before, towards the mountains and the blue sky beyond, I cant help but think, what a wonderful life we've created for ourselves on this planet. Good job sacred 3! Way to make consciousness real!
p.s. WOW tonight? Hit me up. Peace.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
everyone jacks, and everyone has the ability to come up with the same ideas independently of one another, so I think you're in the clear. Technically you all jacked the bible, haha. =)
I guess Id have to agree with you. I only mention it at all because I feel theres a distinction between subtle jacking (accidental or even intentional) and blatant ripping off of words verbatim. Some artists, usually song writers, have been known to take ancient work and lift large amounts of it without sourcing. I think thats scandalous and I just didnt want anyone to think I had done that. In hindsight its clear that there are chief differences between my words, Saul's, and Paul's.
Hmm, interesting discussion.
I just want to throw out my own viewpoint on this subject.
I feel the concept exists as a separate entity unto itself and no one really can claim ownership. Like, its in Open Domain.
I feel it's a concept, so important to our spiritual selves, that it needs expression for each generation and multiple groups of people. And the only way to accomplish said goal is to implant itself into the poet's mind.
Makes me think of another Beatles line:
"There's nothing you can do that can't be done.
Nothing you can sing that can't be sung.
Nothing you can say but you can learn how to play the game.
It's easy.
Nothing you can make that can't be made.
No one you can save that can't be saved.
Nothing you can do but you can learn how to be you in time.
It's easy."
Now, my poetry analysis skills are pretty shoddy, so I must take the words at face value. On the one hand, the song's words seem to express the idea that anything can be done. But on the other, I've always abstracted the idea that all creative thought (art, science, engineering) exists out there. All the individual can do i learn to grasp onto those concepts.
Anyways, I'm also fully aware that much subconscious psychological realities must be at play as well...but such assumptions are built on a model of the human mind which lacks the caveat that we as human beings are inherently connected to another source of inspiration.
It's kind of like Carl Jung's findings that people, all over the world, have similar dreams, and similar symbols, that there exist certain archetypes which are shared by a majority of humanity.
meh, just some ideas to add to the discussion.
Good follow up Crow.
Sunday was beautiful indeed...
I agree with you about what I call "mass consciousness" and how different cultures invent the same ideas, machines, art, etc without ever coming into contact with each other. the phenomenon is really special and helps me to see just how deep our connection to one another really is. but thats not what I usually assume is occurring when it comes to poetry or in particular lyrics. for one the time period is not that far apart to where it would be impossible for one artist to have been exposed to another. for another art these days is money driven. and if it isnt broke dont fix it. therefore we see a lot of blind stealing of other artists material without any acknowledgment (hence the sample, and the lawsuits when artist hasnt given permission) etc etc. not trying to call out saul williams. a notion that grand definitely has no ownership, but as far as coming up with it independent of outside sources, I doubt it. In my case I can definitely say I picked it up from the Beatles. Ive been listening to them all my life. As for Saul, I cant speak, it could be that he just tapped in, but I really think he heard the lyric at least once before he wrote his line. Well never really know, as is the case with art, its always up for debate.
Post a Comment