So I was washing dishes last night listening to the new M.I.A. cd, Kala, that a friend loaned me. And as I was listening to "Paper planes", I realized that the keening synth wailing in the background was nothing new. I'd heard that before. It was from a Clash song, called "Straight to Hell," off their Combat Rock album. I'd owned that LP in the 80's.
I checked M.I.A.'s liner notes to see if they credited the Clash for use of their music. They did. The note said, "This song incorporates an element of "Straight to Hell", written by Joe Strummer, Mick Jones", Nicky Headon and Paul Simonon. Actually it'd be more accurate to say that the whole backbone of the song is the Clash's music. It's the Clash riff that makes the song catchy and appealing, and creates the sonic atmosphere for Maya's rapping. But it's not hers. So is this a failure of creativity, or a triumph? Is this a clever reference to a song that is like-minded, or a rip-off?
I'm trying to see this issue from all sides. Recording artists defend sampling as a sort of musical collage. My knee-jerk reaction is to say, "Would you be justified in cutting a portion of someone else's painting and pasting it in with your own artwork?" Some would argue that the pieces being sampled echo the political messages of their songs, and that by incorporating these riffs they are breathing new life into them, perhaps even driving fans to seek out the original source material. Perhaps. But do most people hearing "Paper Planes" have any idea that the hypnotic back-drop is from the Clash? Their riff is a primary element in her song, which by the way, has been used in a film preview, a TV spot, in the popular movie Slumdog Millionaire and was nominated for a record-of-the-year Grammy. So tell me again how this is not a rip-off?
Maybe it's not a rip-off if the Clash are being compensated handsomely. Joe Strummer died in 2002 of a congenital heart defect, but Mick Jones and others are still around, as far as I know. Maybe Mick Jones is pleased that his riff has found a new audience. But how refreshing it would be to hear something that is politically relevant that isn't recycling someone else's material.
Critics love the song. The Nation called it the "masterpiece" of the CD. M.I.A. uses the sound of gunshots to break through our stupor and remind us of the ready violence that too much of the globe lives under. But would M.I.A.'s gunshots be as powerful if they didn't have the throbbing Clash riff behind them? How much credit does M.I.A. deserve for a song that works, when a large portion of the song isn't hers? Can you really build on material provided by someone else and take credit for creating something new? Now I sound like an old fart, but I was there when Combat Rock was released with this riff on it. It was another example of the Clash's inventiveness and how they didn't sound like just any rock and roll band.
The woman behind M.I.A., Mathangi "Maya" Arulpragasam, of Sri Lankan descent, deserves praise for mixing a heady brew that combines an urban hip-hop groove with a funky jungle sensibility. A refugee of the Sri Lankan conflict, she uses sounds and instruments from Eastern and African cultures, and her lyrics are steeped in third world realities that most of us would prefer to ignore. Hip-hop's not my thang, but I give her credit for a cd that is fresh and different. Except when it's really not.
Kala, by M.I.A.
Well, it's a real gray area. I tend to think, though, that no one really owns a good riff. To me riffs are kind of like community property. Then again, it kind of depends on the genre of music you're listening to. If you're talking about blues, there's just no such thing as an original tune. I've heard the same tune sung over and over in different songs; no one gets too bent out of shape about it. On the other hand, stealing folk riffs would probably be greatly frowned upon. I guess rock is somewhere in-between.
ReplyDeleteWell, it is a gray area, I agree, since there is really no such thing as truly original material. But I see a difference between borrowing an organic riff and playing it yourself, and transplanting a piece of recorded music into your own song. This was more than just a riff. The Clash used some kind of equipment to achieve the sound they got, and who knows what kind of mixing they did in the studio to get it just the way they wanted. To me, taking that and making it the foundation of your song crosses a line. Maybe I just think the credit for the Clash's contribution should be more prominent.
ReplyDeleteAh, yes, I totally agree! If equipment was involved, finesse, tweaking of knobs, etc. -- to copy that is a real ripoff.
ReplyDeleteI feel the same way about "photographers" who make nice photographs out of other people's artwork. However, I have been guilty of the same, with my photographs of manhole covers. Some of those are very artistic in their own rite. I just could not resist. But, in my defense, I am not making money off of them.
Right, you're not making money or gaining world-wide fame or getting nominated for Photo of the Year for your manhole covers. Besides, I think that the manhole cover is a little different, for several reasons. Yes, the Clash tweaked some equipment to create their track, and then MIA took it and got nominated for Song of the Year. Guess I've exhausted this topic, but that really chaps my hide.
ReplyDeleteThis is a good piece. I don't think that this is the best song on the album. Now I'm worried about the song I like--I wonder if the coolness of it is all because of a Pixies riff! I agree with you in some cases, but I have to admit I like to see what beats can be incorporated with already established riffs. I think it does take some creativity to mesh the sounds together. However, I don't think it is more creative than creating an original riff or at least using instruments to re-create the riff. And yes, I think artists should give specific credit to the sounds that they are nicking. Also, thanks for teaching me the word "pastiche"--totally apt for this post--perfecto!
ReplyDelete