Inspiration or imitation?

I was recently listening to an old-school radio station (no shame!) when I was surprised to hear this song:

I quickly found out it’s name on Shazam, and discovered it is ‘Piano in the Dark’ by Brenda Russell, originally recorded in 1987.

What surprised me most were the chorus lines:

“I know, caught up in the middle
I cry just a little
When I think of letting go
Oh no, gave up on the riddle
I cry just a little…”

I mused at how familiar these lines were, when I realised they have been recently brought back to life in 2011 by Dutch duo Bingo Players in their hit ‘Cry (Just a Little)’, and even more recently the Bingo Players version was remixed by Flo Rida in his even bigger hit ‘I Cry’.

Interestingly, comments in the youtube videos seem to constantly lament the lack of originality in the songs. Comments for the Bingo Players version cry ‘The true original is Brenda Russell’s!’, meanwhile comments on the Flo Rida version wail ‘Everybody knows this is just a rip off of the Bingo Players song!’

This got me thinking, is anything actually original anymore? (Yes, I do realise I sound like an old person). When it comes to music, I always used to wonder whether we would ever run out of songs, because isn't there a finite combination of notes to be strung together to make a tune?

This question was well answered in the Vsauce video here. 

So, as the video above explains, we will probably never run out of songs after all. Yet why is it that so many songs seem to recycle the same sounds? This was clearly and hilariously expressed by Melbourne group ‘The Axis of Awesome’ in their video 4 chords. 

Sometimes, similarity can cause legal feuds over who has the intellectual property rights, as was famously seen in the legal battle of Men at Work over their famous hit ‘Down Under’ due to incorporating the well-loved Australian ballad ‘Kookaburra sits in the old gum tree’.

The same question applies to any other kind of creative work, whether it be music, fashion or books. It seems that there is rarely any originality when it comes to novel and movie plotlines. For example, many commentators have noted that the plotline for Avatar was suspiciously similar to that of Pocahontas.

But the last time I checked, Pocahontas did NOT involve a strange species of weirdly hot blue people that ‘bond’ with the animals that the ride by joining pony-tails. On that note, what was up with that?!

At the end of the day, nothing is created from a vacuum. All artists draw inspiration from their life experiences, including others’ art. I suppose that ultimately, similarity is just a spectrum, and we must use our judgement to decide when something is ‘inspired by’ or simply ‘copying’ another work. After all, in the words of Gandhi, imitation is the sincerest flattery.

“Originality is nothing but judicious imitation. The most original writes borrowed one from another.” –Voltaire

the reckless philosopher

Book review: Moloka'i

I just finished reading the novel ‘Moloka’i’ by Alan Brennert. Although this blog doesn’t usually involve book reviews, I really couldn’t help myself.

I’d like to say ‘this is one of my favourite books of all time’, however when I stop to think about it, I’d be hard pressed to think of a book I liked more. This book had everything: history, romance, tragedy, comedy and an overall sense of hope and inspiration.

Now see, even when I write that it sounds too hyperbolic, and I’m sure many of you are saying ‘yeah yeah, heard it all before’.  But this is the real McCoy, people! 

The same thing seems to happen in the blurb:

"Rachel is sent to Kalaupapa, the quarantined leprosy settlement on the island of Moloka'i. Here her life is supposed to end - but instead she discovers it is just beginning... Moloka'i is a masterpiece of story telling about a people who embraced life in the face of death."

When I first read this part of the blurb, my initial reaction was 'eh, sounds a bit depressing. She gets sent away to a leper colony, but still does some cool things there. Great.'

But, as you might have guessed, I couldn’t have been more wrong.

The novel follows the life of the protagonist, Rachel Kalama, from 1891 to 1970 in her homeland of Hawai’i, where she “dreams of visiting far-off lands like her father, a merchant seaman”, however at the age of seven she is diagnosed with leprosy, and is quarantined at the Kalaupapa settlement on the island of Moloka’i.

The novel follows all the trials and tribulations she experiences throughout her life, most of which are based on real life experiences of Kalaupapa residents and events that the author meticulously researched.

Although I had known a small amount about the history of Hawai’i, the novel explores events like the annexation of Hawai’i to the United States, WWII and the later commercialization and tourist-takeover, from the perspective of native Hawai’ians. There are other, smaller, considerations which also give the novel realistic qualities, such as the arrival of films, electricity, and aeroplanes.

Of course, this is all occurring as an undercurrent to the main plot: that of Rachel as she grows from a young girl, throughout her teenage years, into adulthood and as an elderly woman.

I don’t want to spoil too much, so I’ll try not to say anymore, however I do want to share with you this quote:

“There’s only one disadvantage, really, to having two mothers… You know twice the love… but you grieve twice as much.”

In her time at Kalaupapa, Rachel found a whole new “ohana”, a family, comprised of mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers, friends and lovers. Although almost everyone, even her dogs, seemed to perish before she, the novel allows you to realise that the pain you suffer when those you love leave is a small price to pay for ever having had them.

I highly recommend this book to anyone with or without knowledge about Hawai'i, with or without interest in historical/epic novels, and with or without a heart. 

- the reckless philosopher