[jp57]

> Sure, you do covers, and everyone knows the difference between a cover and an original.

Everyone? You'd be amazed at the number of songs people think are the originals but are actually covers. I bet there's some songs even you didn't realise were covers

Geez. I meant the concept of a cover vs the concept of an original. A cover is ultimately a performance, and is different from writing a new song. This is so well understood within the music community that a song even has separate copyrights for the song itself and a recording of its performance (even by the songwriter).

A baked pie is analogous to a performance of a recipe, while the recipe itself is analogous to the song (as a concept).

But it is strange to think of a reimplementation of a piece of software that one might acquire and use easily; it doesn't really fit the concept of performance. I am in fact a fan of reimplementing things in order to figure out how they work, but I don't expect my implementation to have any utility beyond the pedagogical value I got from doing it, unless it is in some way different from what exists already. I'm not sure what value I'd get from showing it to someone or what they'd get from looking at it, exactly.

[hnlmorg]

> Geez. I meant the concept of a cover vs the concept of an original. A cover is ultimately a performance, and is different from writing a new song. This is so well understood within the music community that a song even has separate copyrights for the song itself and a recording of its performance (even by the songwriter).

If only it were that simple. There are constantly cases bought to court about similarities in one persons work to another artists. Then you have other issues around what constitutes a derivative work. And so many original songs sample other artists songs and pay them royalties, that's not a cover either.

I think what you're trying to highlight is writing credits vs performance. Which is a lot easier to define. However even here, plenty of disputes still happen.

> But it is strange to think of a reimplementation of a piece of software that one might acquire and use easily; it doesn't really fit the concept of performance.

The real problem with these analogies is that you're comparing something consumable with something reuable. But I accept the point of an analogy isn't precision.

> I am in fact a fan of reimplementing things in order to figure out how they work, but I don't expect my implementation to have any utility beyond the pedagogical value I got from doing it, unless it is in some way different from what exists already.

Would emulation fall into this category? You're building software to run something exactly as it would run elsewhere - a reimplementation. The motive differs (to run on different hardware) but that's not a property of the product itself.

Which comes back to my earlier post: you're talking about the merit of replication without discussing motives behind it. In your latest comment you say "to figure out how they work" and that's another great example of a motive that brings value to replication.

[albedoa]

> If only it were that simple. There are constantly cases bought to court about similarities in one persons work to another artists. Then you have other issues around what constitutes a derivative work. And so many original songs sample other artists songs and pay them royalties, that's not a cover either.

It's increasingly difficult to accept that you are replying to jp57 in good faith. They are not talking about the ability of anyone to recognize the difference between an original and a derived work. The concept of a cover is well-understood.

[hnlmorg]

I am replying in good faith.

My point is that the whole concept of originality is a blurry mess and hugely subjective.

To demonstrate that point, I was giving other examples of copying in music. Let’s remember that it was me who introduced the analogy of a cover when the OP examples how bands might pride themselves on originality. I’m giving examples that his statement is false as often as it is true.

Maybe I’m misunderstanding the OPs point of view. Or maybe I’m just too old for this debate because trends are usually cyclical. If either of those are true then I’m sorry and I’ll bow out.

[jp57]

Well, I'm in my 50s, I thought it was the kids who expected their friends to be uncritically accepting.

This whole subthread spawned from one sentence where I asserted that I found it valuable when my friends would tell me if they thought my songs sounded too much like something else (and that they expected the same from me), as an illustration that there are contexts in which asking about originality is something that would be reasonable for a friend to do. Nothing you've said so far seems intended to refute any of that.

I stand by the notion that the definition of "cover" and "original" song are not especially ambiguous, even though music appreciation is subjective and there are edge cases where reasonable people may disagree about whether two songs are "too similar" to be considered distinct songs.

[hnlmorg]

I wasn’t claiming people get confused about covers. But to be honest, I think we’ve both been missing each others point.

For the sake of keeping things on topic, and also because I’m about to crack open a bottle of whisky, I’ll just leave the following comment:

Your point about constructive feedback is an empowering one. And while I’m not sure I’ve understood the nuances of everything you’ve posted, I do 100% agree with your sentiment regarding constructive feedback.

[albedoa]

> I think we’ve both been missing each others point.

This is so fucking gross. Nobody has been "missing" you. If you are truly sorry and willing to change, then the appropriate response is to own up to and apologize for intentionally misreading the person who you have wronged, not try to pass off blame to them.