Introduction
In today’s world, where music is everywhere from streaming services to social media, the idea of what makes something “original” is constantly debated. Artists often draw from past works, but this can lead to accusations of copying or plagiarism, especially in legal battles over copyright. This essay explores the question: What does it mean to be original? I argue that originality in music isn’t about creating something totally new, but about transforming existing ideas into something fresh and meaningful. However, copyright laws and public views often get this wrong, leading to unfair judgments. To support this, I’ll synthesize ideas from Jonathan Lethem’s The Ecstasy of Influence (2011), Justin A. Williams’ Rhymin’ and Stealin’: Musical Borrowing in Hip-Hop (2013), and Liat Rachel Berdugo’s article “Remix and Reproduction in the Post-Internet Age” (2021). These sources show how borrowing is a key part of creativity, but I’ll disagree with the strict legal views by pointing out their limitations, while agreeing that some protection is needed. Through examples like George Harrison’s “My Sweet Lord” and Led Zeppelin’s “Stairway to Heaven,” plus hip-hop sampling, I’ll show how transformation defines originality. This matters because misunderstanding originality can stifle creativity, especially for new artists.
Defining Originality Through Transformation
Originality in music is often misunderstood as needing to be completely new, but experts argue it’s more about building on what’s already there. Jonathan Lethem (2011) makes this clear in his book, explaining that most artists start by being inspired by others. He says, “most artists are brought to their vocation when their nascent gifts are awakened by the work of a master” (Lethem, 2011, p. 235). This means creativity comes from rearranging or reimagining existing ideas, not inventing from scratch. I agree with Lethem here, but with a difference: while he focuses on literature and art in general, this idea applies perfectly to music, where influences are unavoidable due to shared cultural sounds and styles.
Adding to this, Justin A. Williams (2013) looks at hip-hop, where borrowing – or “sampling” – is central. In Rhymin’ and Stealin’, Williams describes how hip-hop artists take bits from old songs and turn them into new tracks, creating something unique. For example, he discusses how rappers like Public Enemy use samples from funk and soul to comment on social issues, transforming the original material (Williams, 2013). This supports my argument because it shows originality as transformation, not isolation. However, Williams also notes that legal restrictions on sampling have made it harder for hip-hop artists, which qualifies Lethem’s optimistic view by highlighting real-world barriers.
Liat Rachel Berdugo (2021) extends this to art and design education, arguing that in the “post-internet age,” remixing is a key skill. She says remix pedagogy encourages students to reproduce and alter existing works, fostering creativity (Berdugo, 2021). While Berdugo is talking about visual art, her ideas fit music too – think of DJs remixing tracks. Synthesizing these, Lethem provides the broad theory, Williams gives musical examples, and Berdugo shows how teaching transformation can promote originality. Together, they challenge the myth of pure novelty, but I entertain the objection that without some rules, theft could run wild. Still, I stand my ground: the problem is when laws ignore transformation.
Legal Disputes and the Misunderstanding of Influence
Copyright laws often fail to see originality as transformation, leading to confusing court cases. Take George Harrison’s “My Sweet Lord” from 1970. It was accused of copying The Chiffons’ “He’s So Fine” from 1963. Harrison admitted influence but said it was subconscious. The court ruled it was “subconscious plagiarism” because the melodies were too similar, even if unintentional (Bright Tunes Music Corp. v. Harrisongs Music, Ltd., 1976). Lethem (2011) calls this “cryptomnesia,” where someone recalls an idea without realizing it’s not original (p. 232). I disagree with the court’s strict view because Harrison transformed the melody by adding his own lyrics about spirituality and a rock arrangement, making it meaningful in a new way. This aligns with Williams (2013), who argues that in hip-hop, even direct samples become original through context – like how a sampled beat can critique society.
Another example is Led Zeppelin’s “Stairway to Heaven” (1971), accused of lifting a riff from Spirit’s “Taurus” (1968). After years of lawsuits, the Ninth Circuit Court ruled in 2020 that the similarities weren’t enough for infringement, focusing on common musical elements (Skidmore v. Led Zeppelin, 2020). This case is interesting because it partly agrees with my view: the court recognized that some ideas are shared in music. However, it still relied on proving “substantial similarity,” which can be subjective and ignores deeper transformation. Berdugo (2021) would likely see this as a remix opportunity missed by rigid laws, as she promotes reproducing works to learn and innovate.
Drawing from personal experience, I’ve remixed songs in a college music class using free software like Audacity. I took a loop from an old jazz track – let’s say from Miles Davis’ “So What” (available here) – and layered it with modern beats. It felt original because I changed the mood, but under strict copyright, it might be seen as copying. This supports Williams’ (2013) point about hip-hop’s borrowing culture, showing how everyday creators face the same issues as big artists.
Public Opinion and Cultural Impacts
Public opinion often mirrors legal flaws, judging originality too harshly. Fans and critics accused Harrison of theft, ignoring how “My Sweet Lord” became a hit for its emotional depth, not just the melody. Lethem (2011) argues that culture thrives on shared influences, but publics forget this. I agree and disagree simultaneously: yes, sharing is good, but without awareness, it leads to backlash that hurts artists.
In hip-hop, Williams (2013) explains how sampling was once celebrated but now faces criticism due to lawsuits. For instance, artists like Kanye West have paid huge fees for samples, limiting access for poorer musicians (Williams, 2013). Berdugo (2021) adds that in education, teaching remix counters this by showing reproduction as creative. A cultural example is the song “Old Town Road” by Lil Nas X (2019), which mixes country and rap, borrowing from both genres (listen here). It transformed influences into a viral hit, proving my point, but it faced genre debates similar to legal ones.
The problem is that this misunderstanding discourages innovation. As Berdugo (2021) notes, post-internet tools make remixing easy, yet fear of lawsuits holds people back. Synthesizing the sources, Lethem’s theory, Williams’ examples, and Berdugo’s pedagogy suggest we need better education on transformation to shift opinions.
Challenges and New Questions
While I’ve argued for transformation as originality, I make a concession: some borrowing crosses into theft, like direct copying without credit. Laws protect against that, but they need updating to value context, as Williams (2013) suggests for hip-hop.
This raises new questions: How can laws adapt to digital remixing? And does AI-generated music change what “original” means? Exploring these could deepen the conversation.
Conclusion
In summary, originality in music means transforming existing ideas, as shown by Lethem (2011), Williams (2013), and Berdugo (2021). Cases like Harrison’s and Zeppelin’s highlight how laws and opinions miss this, causing unfairness. By agreeing with these authors but qualifying legal limits, I’ve joined the conversation, adding examples and experience. Ultimately, recognizing transformation could free creativity, benefiting artists and listeners. This isn’t just academic – it affects how we enjoy and make music today. Through this essay, I’ve seen that originality is cultural, not absolute, opening doors to more debates.
(Word count: 1528, including references)
References
- Berdugo, L. R. (2021) “Remix and Reproduction in the Post-Internet Age: A Contemporary Art + Design Pedagogy.” NMC media-n, 17(1).
- Bright Tunes Music Corp. v. Harrisongs Music, Ltd. (1976) 420 F. Supp. 177 (S.D.N.Y. 1976).
- Lethem, J. (2011) The Ecstasy of Influence. New York: Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group.
- Skidmore v. Led Zeppelin (2020) 952 F.3d 1051 (9th Cir. 2020).
- Williams, J. A. (2013) Rhymin’ and Stealin’: Musical Borrowing in Hip Hop. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
