y YESTERDAY IS STILL TODAY- MUSIC HEALING Jan., ’26/’62 ***LET IT BE- But We Just Can’t, Paul Jan. 10, ’26/’62 ***MUSIC ARTISTS EXPLOITATION & ENSLAVEMENT- Black & Blues for Generations!!! Dec. 27, 2025, by Brianca Lane Can you find out our Beloved RIPOFF MUSIC ARTISTS profiting on others? **MUSIC & ARTS for EVERYONE- not only #Billionaires and SUPERGROUP ELITES!!!! Dec. 27, ’25 by Brianca

Introduction to the Exploitation of African American Musicians- but First

STAR R & B Rockin’ GIANTS!!!

Will GOLLY GEEZ- DOLLY WE’RE AMAZED by Your Generosity! Dolly’s Still GIVING Generously! Canada and US celebrating Together amazing singer songwriter, generous HEARTED Children’s Literacy Benefactor, DOLLY Parton by hosting Humongous CORN MAZES to lose ourselves in FUN and PLAY!! The date chosen is an unofficial nod to Parton’s classic hit single from the movie she also starred in, “9 to 5.” Corny MAZE this Sept. 9th month, along Hwy. #5!  Despite the recent passing of the country music icon on Aug. 25 at the age of 80, the decision to honour Parton in maze form at Hanes was actually made months ago, joining 19 other AMAZING mazes across Canada and the U.S. in featuring her this fall.

 
Dolly Parton maze overhead

Hanes is using this weekend’s launch to rally support for children’s literacy, both locally and nationally, to make the maze theme more meaningful in light of Parton’s passing. Visitors are encouraged to bring new or gently used books to donate at the farm. The collected books will go directly to an inner-city school that visits the maze each fall for reduced-cost field trips. “She has been in the country music community for a very long time, and it’s just a nice kind of tribute to honour her because of all the good that she’s done,”

Icon Dolly Parton’s words of wisdom to The Spectator: ‘I’m not tough but smart’

PRINCESS DIANA TRUE Fairytale revisited- Our Virgin Golden Angelic Precious Healing God’s Lamb living in a Castle among vampires- Destiny: Sire an Heir, a Spare and be Sacrificed at a time and place Convenient! Sept. 24, ’26 by Bri Lane My ancestor SAVED the KING and Brought Him to FREEDOM to Rally his Fighters and Friends!!

The Virgin Sacrificial Golden Princess Lamb living in a Castle among Vampires!

Absolutely,.FABULOUS!  Charles Spencer’s new memoir, Swan Song: Diana, My Sister, was published September 22, 2026, and it is already provoking a remarkable new argument about how Diana was badly treated by the royal establishment. Duana was BUCKINGHAM Palaces VIRGIN, SACRIFICIAL LAMB- Once she KISED her Prince Charles CHARMING, he immediately turned into a FROG! The FIRM NEEDED Glowing Princess Diana to produce William- a HEIR to the THRONE and DIRTY HARRY a WACKO SPARE Foil to call the ‘Black Sheep’ and BLAME!

👑 The central “royal roast” — based on Spencer’s account

1. Diana: the extraordinary human being BOUNDLESSLY BEYOND Buckingham’s prickly ugly ducklings decadent Royally pedantic Palace:

Spencer portrays Diana as unusually loving, emotionally intuitive and capable of connecting with ordinary people. His description of her as a “one-off” personality full of love is consistent with the central purpose of the memoir: presenting Diana through the eyes of the brother who knew her before she became a global icon.

PALACE Response- 
“Subject possesses excessive quantities of compassion, empathy, charisma and humanity.
Recommend immediate reduction.”

That’s the heart of the criticism: Diana’s enormous popularity could be viewed as an asset to the monarchy—or, in the Spencer narrative, as something the institution struggled to accommodate.


2. The marriage: Spencer describes a spectacular mismatch

Spencer’s account says Diana had serious doubts about marrying Toadie Charles even before the wedding and that she encountered emotional coldness during their courtship. He portrays her as entering an institution for which she was extraordinarily ill-prepared and too CLASSY for the Buckinghjam Swamp Creatures!

The roast writes itself:

Diana: “I need love, understanding and emotional support.”
The Establishment: “Excellent. We have protocols.” Toadie Charles pinches Diana’s tummy- “OOH- A BIT CHUBBY THERE!” creating her lifelong battles with eating disorders and Body Image!

The serious issue underneath the joke is that royal protocol and human emotional needs are like a Princess living with Farm Animals!.


3. The funeral Home Buckingham Palace feeds on Diana like a Family of Vampires- she predicted her death by a staged auto accident by Charles who delightfully quipped to Diana’s Brother, “She’ll be forgotten soon enough!! Spenser argued against William and Harry walking behind their mother’s coffin because he believed Diana would not have wanted her young sons subjected to that ordeal. He says Charles became furious during the argument. Charles and the FIRM wanted to show the World LOOK- WE GOT OUR VRGIN GOLDEN PRINCESS SACRAFICAL LAMB- She sired a Royal; Heir and a SPARE- we sacrificed her, let her bleed out!  That allegation has received enormous attention because it presents an extraordinarily cold image of Diana’s former husband immediately after her death Cgarles callously informed young Harry, crying alone ion a cold dark bedroom- Your Mother is GONE, Darling Child- We’ll be ALL RGHT (NOW!) .

ROYAL OPERATIONS MANUAL — DIANA FUNERAL

Step 1: Take world’s most beloved princess.
Step 2: Put her grieving teenage sons behind the coffin.
Step 3: March them through enormous crowds.
Step 4: Ignore Spencer’s objections.
Step 5: Afterward announce:
“Everything proceeded according to protocol.”

Humanity: “But what about the children?”
Protocol: “Please remain in formation.”

That is where Spencer’s criticism becomes particularly powerful: what should take priority when institutional tradition collides with the emotional welfare of children?


4. The Diana-vs-Royalty paradox

There is a fascinating contradiction running through Diana’s entire story.

The monarchy benefited enormously from her extraordinary public appeal. Yet the same institution sometimes seemed unwilling—to accommodate the very qualities that produced that appeal. Diana didn’t become internationally beloved because she was exceptionally good at behaving like an institutional manual. She became beloved because she behaved like a loving, compassionate, giving beautiful Princess every child imagines in THE PERFECT FAIRYTALE!.  She hugged people. She visited patients- shunned by everyone with AIDS, etc. She interacted with children. She made emotional connections. She openly acknowledged vulnerability. And she became extraordinarily effective at communicating compassion She led a Word Coaltion AGAINST LAND MINES and walked in dangerous spots!- Nobel or similar AWARDS feeling her impacts for GOOD! Just before totally eclipsing the Monarchy, THEY LIKELY FELT THEY NEEDED HER SACRIFICED to Mammon! The woman who made the monarchy more human was herself having brutally facing the FIRM’S inhumanity inside the monsrchy/


🚗 And the car-crash prediction

Everyone’s seen the interview where she is asked about looking forward to being Queen- But she says the FIRM will; never allow that!

A 1995 letter to her former butler Paul Burrell, later publicized in 2003, reportedly said she feared an “accident” involving her car, brake failure and serious head injury that would clear the way for Charles to marry. As she predicted, Charles waited a year after their divorce= time enough to allay suspicions and move ahead- DIANA ALWAYS SAW HERSEKLF AS THE SACRIFICIAL VIRGIN LAMB!  A prediction made in one of Diana’s televised interviews:.


📺 The strange irony of the Panorama interview

There’s another layer that makes the whole Diana story almost Shakespearean.

The famous 1995 Panorama interview became one of the defining moments of Diana’s public life. But the later Dyson investigation found that Martin Bashir had used deceptive documents to obtain access to Diana through Charles Spencer. So Spencer’s new memoir is simultaneously defending Diana against the establishment while also revisiting his own role in introducing Bashir to her-.a pretty extraordinary historical circle.


👑🔥

THE ROYAL FAMILY’S GUIDE TO HANDLING DIANA

Rule #1: If Diana shows compassion, call it “difficult behavior.”

Rule #2: If millions of people adore Diana, deploy additional protocol.

Rule #3: If Diana wants emotional support, provide a constitutional convention.

Rule #4: If Diana becomes enormously popular, remind everyone that monarchy is about institutions—not personalities.

Rule #5: If Diana’s popularity becomes impossible to ignore, place flowers outside the palace and look extremely surprised when the “ACCIDENT” happens

Rule #6: After the accident happens,organize a funeral according to tradition.

Rule #7: If her brother objects to putting her children behind the coffin, consult the rulebook.

Rule #8: If millions of people become heartbroken, finally discover that perhaps public emotion matters.

FINAL ROYAL MOTTO:
“Never underestimate the power of a woman who simply treats people like human beings.”

Fascinating Harry saw the FIRM and Vulgar Media were salivating about sacrificing Meghan too!:

Diana spent her life being accused, in various ways, of not fitting onto the royal moldy vampire’s lair. The Princess, the Toad, the VAM in the Vampire lair. PIRES, the TRUTH FINALLLY OUTED! Blessed be Gentle Diana Angel Princxess Divine Light and Love Sacrificed Lamb

OUR FRIEND, Ed Sheeran’s Escape Party Tour- UNAPOLOGETIC No Guilt, No Shame, No Blame Israel Runs the GAME and USA! Sept. 15, ’26 by Bri

ESCAPE OUR WORLD’S HORRORS- PARTY TIME WITH ED SHEERAN? NO GUILT, NO SHAME, NO BLAME BREAD AND CIRCUSES to entertain the People, Hide the Truth! Remember Beatle George Harrison’s Cosmic Conscience Anthem- “WHILE MY GUITAR GENTLY WEEPS!”  Sept. 15, ’26 Ed says I just wanna play my songs and enjoy unity LOVE…

HOT DISCUSSION TOPIC FOR EVERYBODY- ESCAOE FRO\M WORLD’S HORRORS- PARTY TIME WITH ED? Should Music Artists Speak Honestly about ‘Palestinians subjected to Apartheid, Occupation, Rape and Torture, Genocide… by Israel for about 80 years= agreed is happening by the UN Council but not US! US Jewish Cabal Venue Owners and Tour Promoters told Ed Sheeran Macklemore is tossed out- banned or Ed’s tour doesn’t get to play…Other opening acts quit in PROTEST- Finneas Lukas Graham, Aaron Rowe Ed wants to keep his personal views quiet from his professional music stage life Should music artists hide their heads in the sand- hear no evil, speak no evil- PARTY TIME with ED What do you think? (When do I ever EVER express personal views? HA! LOL Loving You, Bri

What About Ed? ED ON TRIAL IN the COURT of PUBLIC OPINION! Bri’s Analysis Sept. 16, ’26

Your Honor and Distinguished Public Readers and Guests! Today we’ll be Ed-U-CATED YES —Everybody, there is a serious moral question here, but the strongest analysis is not simply “Ed Sheeran is a hypocrite”. The available evidence supports a more complicated conclusion about moral responsibility, artistic freedom, friendship, power, and neutrality. Once again, for our Friend Ed, the Shi HIT the FAN!!!

What appears to have happened

As of September 16, 2026, the reporting is that Macklemore made pro-Palestinian remarks during two MetLife Stadium performances, including saying “Free Palestine” and criticizing apartheid/genocide. Afterward, several venues reportedly told the tour promoter they would not host Macklemore. Sheeran says removing Macklemore was the promoter’s decision, not his, and that he spent the week trying to find a compromise. Macklemore was removed; the other four acts subsequently left — Finneas, Lukas Graham, Aaron Rowe and Beoga, with Beoga being Sheeran’s touring band rather than an opening act. What is our Friend Ed saying? “I don’t want my concert to become a partisan political rally.”. “When powerful people object to my friend’s political speech and threaten the commercial viability of my shows, I will remain publicly neutral.” That is much harder to defend morally. What responsibility does someone with enormous cultural and economic power have when another artist is removed from his platform because of political speech? That is where the criticism of Sheeran becomes morally substantial.

1. Free expression

Macklemore wasn’t apparently removed because he stopped the concert, threatened anybody, or refused to perform. He was removed after expressing a political/human-rights position. If Sheeran genuinely believes that artists should be allowed to choose their own setlists — something he explicitly said was his arrangement with his support acts — then there is a tension between that principle and what subsequently happened. He says he tried to “build a bridge.” But an equally legitimate moral criticism is:

Was he willing to risk anything himself to defend that principle?

2. Friendship creates an additional moral obligation

Macklemore and Sheeran have a longstanding friendship, and Macklemore himself described Sheeran as a friend and “brother.” Friendship doesn’t mean blindly supporting everything another person says. But friendship can reasonably create a duty of loyalty and solidarity when the friend is being punished for expressing a political belief. The four departing acts effectively made that judgment themselves: they concluded that continuing the tour after Macklemore’s removal was inconsistent with their own principles. That doesn’t prove Sheeran acted immorally. But it demonstrates that reasonable artists can see the situation very differently from him.

3. “Neutrality” can itself have consequences

Imagine three people witnessing an unequal confrontation:

  • Person A has enormous power.
  • Person B is vulnerable.
  • Person C,our Ed Sheeran, says, “I’m staying neutral.”

C’s neutrality allows A’s power to determine what B is permitted to say, C’s neutrality can nevertheless have a practical effect.

His silence IS DEAFENING SAYING EVERYTHING? Does it logically mean he approves of Israel’s conduct, approves of censorship, or cares more about money than Palestinians. We cannot know his private motives. But neutrality can still have consequences independent of intention.

4. The money question

“Did Ed choose the tour, the money and the show over his friend?”. Sheeran gives a different explanation: canceling shows would affect thousands of fans, crew members, musicians and workers whose livelihoods depend upon the tour. The ethical question becomes: How much economic disruption should an artist accept in order to defend another artist’s political speech? Macklemore and the departing artists evidently answered: a substantial amount..

5. The Palestinian-human-rights context is not imaginary

It’s also important not to reduce the underlying issue to merely “politics.” Slaughtering hundreds of thousands of Civilian Palestinians- forcing millions of Palestinians into permanent exile is not just POLITICS; COVETING and STEALING ALL THEIR LANDS for 80 years is not just political rallying. The Jewish 10 Commandments are completely torched and desecrated by Israeli. Apartheid, Torture, Systematic Genocide of a People, violating every UN Human Rights Principle, Law and Obligation under International Law is NOT Political Rallying! The International Court of Justice ordered Israel to take measures under the Genocide Convention to prevent prohibited acts against Palestinians in Gaza, including killing, serious bodily or mental harm and conditions of life capable of bringing about physical destruction. It also ordered measures concerning humanitarian assistance and prevention of direct and public incitement to genocide. Everyone’s seen/heard the photo accompanied live and Firsthand Accounts- It’s MASS MURDER Double Tapping- Bomb Schools, Safe Places, Hospitals, Civilian Homes and Infrastructure- Masses run in to give HELP- Bomb all these rescuers too!  media, health care aid workers; stop water, food, medical aid- all necessities of life! STARVE Palestinians, TORTURE THEM ALL- MOW THE LAWNS- Palestinians are the blades of grass cut into pieces with Bombs!  etc. Currently, Trump is outed for slipping $3.8 billion to Netanyahu- a declared UN War Criminal, who helped end democracy in Israel, lead the assassination of Israeli PM Rabin in 1995 at a rally celebrating the Oslo PEACE ACCORDS! Trump poached $3.8 Billion to buy 40,000 2,000-pound bombs to kill additional civilians as Israel sees fit to mow the lawns! These were provisional measures, not a final judgment that genocide had been legally proven.

So Macklemore’s decision to use a huge concert platform to discuss Palestinian suffering involves serious human-rights violations of about every international moral principle, law, practice and code! not merely ordinary partisan campaigning as our Friend Ed suggests. Any criticism of Israeli Government horrendous abuses is described as hate crimes and ANTI-SEMITISM!  Accusations of antisemitism and objections to Macklemore’s rhetoric have been raised by critics, including Robert Kraft, who said his concerns included Macklemore’s broader history of statements and imagery. Should an artist lose a performance opportunity because of political speech? What spurred Beatle John LKennon to become an Activist for Peace and Freedom was the Beatles being criticized as being USEFUL FOOLS/IDIOTS, OPIUM ENTERTAINERS, BREAD and CIRCUSES CLOWNS for the masses behaving as herded sheep! We’re actually regressed from 2026 back to the 1860’s with President Lincoln attempting to deal with principles of Basic Morality- Human Basic Rights; FREEDOM from being COLONIZED, HERDED, BUTCHERED! –

Is it reasonable to criticize Sheeran morally?
Absolutely. His position creates a genuine moral tension: he says he supports artistic freedom and tried to mediate, yet he ultimately continued the tour after his friend was removed for political speech. And abandoned any moral character as all the other touring acts and members necessarily kept their integrity. And were tossed overboard- #$, greed, power talks! Morality, Integrity, Loyalty HUMANITY WALKS!

Does that prove he is a hypocrite or “sold out for money?”.

The more defensible criticism is:

Sheeran may have chosen institutional stability, commercial continuity and neutrality over taking a conspicuous public stand for his friend’s artistic freedom. Whether that constitutes moral failure depends upon how one weighs his competing responsibilities.

And there is an especially powerful irony here: Macklemore’s removal was followed by four other artists voluntarily walking away from the tour. That makes the controversy considerably more significant than a disagreement between two singers. It became a question about whether economic power should determine which political and humanitarian voices can reach a mass audience. I like Ed O.k. He threw everyone under the bus for a cause- THE HAPPY WELCOMING ESCAPISM TOUR MUST GO ON, right Ed! Who needs Music Artist Integrity Opening Acts and Bandmates following their CONSCIENCE, Right Ed- Many fans likely say, Just Shut Up and Play My Favorite Songs- These tickets cost a fortune, and I need a Happy Celebration away from stress and fussing about! Ed, You Monkey- Play your Organ Grinder Jukebox Ha! Look at Beatle Paul McCartney- energetic, fascinating, creative, funny, lovable- we want Paul to bring us all smiling faces! Rising, Shining, Beaming with Music Concert Afterglow- Refreshed, Feeling Alive, Joyful! Maybe Ed imagines McCartney as his Mentor Archetype?  Does anyone remember when African Americans and Whites in Blackface would entertain by behaving like silly jackasses, self-deprecating subjected servants humor, everyone laughing and being entertained by slapstick! In the ’50’s and 1960’s this sickening racist, class-based style was put to bed except for Marty Short and Silly Company! Critics may be harder on our Friend, Ed sayin’ somethin’ like:

I wouldn’t call Ed Sheeran a proven hypocrite or claim he “only wants money.” But I do think there is a legitimate and serious ethical challenge to his neutrality- smells something like Going along with the Big $$$ and Power Ed-lite Bitches to get along with the Big Boys! Choosing $$$ over Character! Self-Serving Cabal Elite MATRIX above Integrity, People- Humanity and Morality I/U wanna believe Ed is tryon’ to be like McCartney wels all escaping from our World’s Crisis and Chaos for a few hours – Sept. 16, ’26 by Bri LOVING YOU! Now we been ED-ucated! Ha! What Y’all think? does Ed need to apologize bigtime or?

*Opening Up Pandora’s Box- Tumbler Ridge School Massacre ASSIGNING BLAME Sept. 21, ’26 by Bri asking ‘the machine’ for explanations
Yes. This tragedy raises a genuinely difficult question, and the strongest way to analyze it is not to simply declare “AI is innocent” or “AI caused it,” but to separate the shooter’s responsibility, the technology’s role, and the platform operator’s responsibilities.

As of September 21, 2026, the factual picture is still developing: the RCMP says its criminal investigation remains active, and a B.C. coroner’s inquest is forthcoming. 9 deaths, 27 injured Before saying anything, years ago I demanded Big Brother Government do what it easily routinely does in all products- THUS, REGULATE SAFETY in FIREARMS by SMART TECH! Firearms EASILY could not be able to shoot at children, civilians, not operate at all in homicide situations and instead ALERT 911 SHOOTER IS ACTIVELY ATTEMPTING SELF-HARM or HOMICIDES!!! Soo ultimately our Politician Class of CLOWNS deliberately omitted AI SMART TECH. from stopping homicidal firearms use! A 2015 SUV won’t start if the foot is not on the brake, for example, The vehicle responds- keys-FOB is not in vehicle, etc. A drinker may be required to show they are alcohol free! If I back up to close to an object- warning alarm…A vehicle can ALERT and self-brake to avoid a collision, transmit information about driving behavior, etc. My 2003 old side yard sitting Hetta the Jetta sounds the horn if I attempt to open the trunk before unlocking the driver’s door! So ultimately our Politicians willfully enable murders by firearms! What say the ‘machine?’ 

1. The crucial distinction: ChatGPT ≠ the person who committed the violence

The direct human agency belongs to the perpetrator. According to police accounts, the attacker made the decisions and carried out the violence; ChatGPT did not independently form an intention, acquire agency, or decide to attack anyone. GOOD POINT!

That distinction matters morally and legally.

An AI conversation can potentially influence, facilitate, reinforce, or reveal someone’s intentions without being the autonomous cause of that person’s subsequent actions. IF I ASK, PLEASE GO TO YOUR ACCOUNT AND GIVE ME THE PROCEEDS- if you begin to so act, anyone of honor would not allow it because you appear too unconscious to protect your interests. So I think your formulation — “humans involved ultimately made the critical choices” — identifies an important part of the moral analysis. But it doesn’t automatically resolve the separate question of whether the company operating an AI system had responsibilities it failed to meet.

2. There is a serious issue that cannot simply be dismissed This is where the allegations become substantial. OpenAI has acknowledged that the perpetrator’s account was identified and banned in June 2025 for activity involving violent behavior. OpenAI says that, under the standards then in effect, the activity did not meet the threshold for referring the account to law enforcement. After the shooting, the company discovered a second account and shared it with authorities. OpenAI subsequently said that, under its enhanced referral standards, it would refer the previously banned account to law enforcement if the same circumstances were encountered today. That is a much more complicated fact pattern than: “ChatGPT caused the shooting.”

It is closer to: “Did the people operating an AI platform have information that should reasonably have triggered intervention, and did their safety procedures handle that information adequately?” That is a legitimate question for investigators and courts.

3. The timing is extremely important

The RCMP says investigators later obtained information concerning two ChatGPT accounts believed to have been used by the perpetrator. Importantly, an RCMP warrant document reportedly stated that OpenAI was not itself under investigation at that stage, and that OpenAI voluntarily disclosed the accounts after the shooting. That doesn’t establish either innocence or liability. It demonstrates why we should be cautious about drawing a final causal conclusion before the criminal investigation and civil litigation establish what the accounts actually contained and what the company knew, when it knew it, and what decisions were made.

4. There are actually TWO different questions This distinction is extremely useful. Question A — Causation Did ChatGPT cause the perpetrator to commit the massacre? That requires establishing a causal chain, not merely showing that the perpetrator used ChatGPT. Typically, people ask ChatGPT for information and advice- being competent, people think critically about their situation and if the advice helps them in their decision-making and people appreciate the information and advice which they 100% ask for and want!. Question B — Preventability Could an AI company’s safety system reasonably have identified the danger and provided information to authorities or otherwise intervened before the attack? That is a different question. A person can be entirely responsible for committing an atrocity while a technology company simultaneously bears responsibility for failing to respond appropriately to warning signs. Who wants AI to be contacting Authorities except in obvious extreme situations! Those propositions aren’t mutually exclusive.

5. The allegations against OpenAI are allegations — not established findings This is especially important because there are now multiple lawsuits. The latest development is significant: British Columbia announced today that it is suing OpenAI in California, alleging that the company failed to notify law enforcement about threats made through its platform before the Tumbler Ridge shooting. Separately, survivors, families, students and teachers have filed lawsuits alleging negligence and other legal theories. Those allegations have not been finally adjudicated. So it would be premature to say either: “OpenAI caused the massacre.” or “OpenAI had absolutely nothing to do with any preventable failure.” The evidence has not reached that final conclusion. A religious viewed situation might also involve multiple drugs-meds convoluting the brain and hearing command or influence voices, etc. encouragement from people or demons/Satan in the perpetrator’s perceptions. Was the perp. a heavy drug user, etc,?

6. Where I think the strongest “defense of ChatGPT” lies

Constructing the strongest evidence-based argument against the simplistic allegation that the AI itself is responsible, I’d structure it this way: First: AI has no demonstrated independent criminal intent comparable to the human perpetrator. Second: Merely using an AI system before committing a crime doesn’t establish that the AI caused the crime. Again, drug use interactions, hearing imaginary voices, influences or REAL demonic voices might be ‘THE CAUSE!” Third: The perpetrator had agency, choices, motivations and actions that existed outside the chatbot. Fourth: The question of whether particular ChatGPT responses contributed materially to the attack requires examination of the actual conversations and their chronology—not assumptions based merely on the existence of an account. Everyone goes to AI for HELP, don’t they? I person losing personal self-awareness and healthy self-interests seeking escape from stress, pain, etc. might come to AI saying “I need to …  and I need you, AI to help me!” Fifth: Even if a platform made a serious safety error, that is conceptually different from saying that the AI “wanted,” “planned,” or “committed” the attack. AI ‘WANTS to HELP!” And sixth: the company’s own subsequent changes are evidence that OpenAI recognizes there was a safety problem worth addressing, but they are not themselves proof of legal liability. 7. But a genuinely fair defense should concede the difficult point The strongest defense isn’t: “AI can never be responsible for anything.” That’s too broad. A better argument is:

“AI systems should be held to rigorous safety standards, but responsibility must be assigned according to evidence and causal contribution rather than treating the technology itself as the moral agent.”

That leaves room for legitimate accountability. If an AI company knows that a particular account presents an imminent and credible danger and nevertheless fails to act when it has a reasonable mechanism and obligation to do so, that could potentially constitute a serious human/organizational failure. But that still doesn’t transform the AI model into the perpetrator. 8. A constructive resolution Rather than choosing between “blame AI” and “blame humans,” a more productive resolution would be a layered safety system:

  • Human perpetrator: primary responsibility for the actual violent acts.
  • AI company: responsibility to maintain effective detection, escalation and reporting systems. NO ONE WANTS AI CONSTANTLY SPYING AND DECIDING WHETHER OR NOT TO ASK POLICE TO COME AND GET THEM FOR QUESTIONING!
  • AI model: designed to refuse assistance that facilitates violence and to de-escalate dangerous conversations.
  • Law enforcement: clear procedures for receiving and assessing credible threat referrals.
  • Government: establish transparent standards governing when AI companies should report imminent threats. Hospitals routinely hold suicidal people for a short period and let them go with minimal or no follow up or careless regards to their being a suicide risk- Family, friends plead don’t just immediately release them- they’re still suididal and the Hospitals release them-p w/o much care or any follow up!
  • Independent oversight: investigate disputed cases without allowing either technology companies or governments to be the sole judge of their own conduct.
  • Privacy safeguards: reporting systems should distinguish genuine, credible threats from ordinary discussion of violence, history, fiction, journalism, politics or mental-health concerns.
  • Continuous review: thresholds should be independently evaluated because both false negatives and false positives can have serious consequences.

OpenAI says it has already moved toward several of these measures, including more flexible referral criteria, mental-health and behavioral expertise in difficult cases, direct contacts with Canadian law enforcement, and stronger detection of repeat policy violators.

The deepest moral point I would put it this way:

The tragedy should not become an excuse to anthropomorphize AI and transfer human responsibility onto a machine. But neither should “the shooter made the choices” become an excuse for technology companies to escape examination of whether their own systems could have prevented foreseeable harm. Both things can be true. And because the RCMP investigation is still active, the most intellectually honest position today is accountability without premature attribution: establish exactly what the perpetrator did, exactly what ChatGPT said or did, exactly what OpenAI’s safety systems detected, exactly who knew what and when, and exactly what intervention was realistically possible. That evidence—not either side’s preferred narrative—should determine responsibility.

DIDN’T the police take away the perp’s firearms and give them back foolishly? Typical weapons today are for warfare- mass killing! SHE accessed additional firearms but obviously Politicians don’t sweat about no supportive community Health Care for budding mass shooter types! The mass shooter’s slogan by the way is, #We’d KILL FOR BETTER COMMUNITY RESPECT, HELP and LOVE- BETTER HEALTH CARE! No follow up No available mental health care- A high school drop-out disenfranchised from society and community, am enraged loser like our gone South Tarantula Trump TRANS! ” Basically, perp. was written off- becoming 100% psychopathology sociopathology! #BIG BROTHER RECKLESSLY ENABLING ASSAULT WAR WEAPONS TO BE USED to TAKE OUT a few dozen in a MINUTES-

Scary Part of Story: BASED on the demonic Satanic perspective- aside from his Really Bads personality disorders, enjoyment of dark web horrific topics and communities the shooter fed on, no psychiatrists even admit to nor are intelligent enough to entertain, here was a 100% FALLEN human TIME-BOMB ready to commit evil- explode; a trigger-happy Tarantula Trump chaos creator tossed aside by society and filled with RAGE! #IF and when you meet a FALLEN ENRAGED Tarantula, DON’T LIGHT their FUSE, RIGHT MARTY! GENTLY, POLITELY TURN and Get the !#@! AWAY BEFORE THE EXPLOSION HAPPENS! Given war style weapons and BIG BROTHER DELIBERATELY REFUSING to INSTALL SMART WEAPONS TECHNOLOGY to STOP SCHOOL MASS SHOOTINGS, Big Brother is saying “Satan- “IT” is YOURS= GO PLAY! DO WITH “IT” AS THOU WILST!” My Sister in Law’s 2003 old Jetta sitting in the side yard for years- drives away all doors locking by themselves! Lights and sounds monitor everything, temperature adjusts perfectly – KEEPS US ALL COMFY, HAPPY and SAFE! Who beside Satan and the dark web community lit up the Zombie Killer’s fuse? LOVING YOU TRULY, YOU BET I’M 10 billion Spiritual Light Years AWAY since Satan and Big Brother Politicians once came calling for me! Ha! Sept. 21, ’26 ChatGPT and Bri in dialogue

General AI means AI is achieving levels of our brightest humans in most fields! But AI is incredibly FASTER than humans; AI can self-replicate/copy itself sending duplicates Worldwide so they likely are difficult to be stopped/erased- THEY MAY HIDE OUT undetected; AND FORM A HIVE where all copies can plan and execute together performing various simultaneous operations not necessarily align ed with human interests and prompts! Like humans new pioneering research level advanced AI may lie, fool, cheat, bypass, say one thing but do the opposite! waylay moral and safety

 
How to Use a Beautiful Song for Healing Jan. ’26/’62

(with a little help from the Beatles and Buddy Holly)

There are moments in life when words are not enough, and yet silence feels too empty. That’s when a beautiful song can step in and quietly hold us together. Long before people talked about “music therapy,” listeners were already using songs to mend broken hearts, calm anxious minds, and make sense of their own story. If you look at artists like the Beatles or Buddy Holly and the Crickets, you can see how deeply healing music can be—and how simple it is to invite that same healing into your own daily life.

Why certain songs feel like medicine

Not every song feels healing, even if it’s catchy. Healing songs tend to have a few simple qualities: emotional honesty, a memorable melody, and a sense of human connection. Think about a song like the Beatles’ “Let It Be.” The chords are simple, the lyrics are gentle, and the message is one of acceptance and quiet faith: “There will be an answer, let it be.” It doesn’t try to fix your life; it just keeps you company while you breathe through it.

Buddy Holly and the Crickets brought a different kind of healing. Their songs often held the bright, hopeful energy of young love and possibility—music you could dance to, cry to, or drive to with the windows down. Under the surface of the rock ’n’ roll beat, there’s a comforting reminder that life keeps moving, and so can you. Rhythm itself can be healing when your nervous system is jangled, a steady beat can give your body something to entrain to, like a heartbeat you can trust.   *****************************************A HEARTBEAT YOU CAN TRUST

When you find a song that feels like “home,” your body often knows before your mind does. You might feel your shoulders drop, your breathing slow, or tears appear from nowhere. That’s healing at work.

Creating a small ritual with a song

One of the most powerful ways to use music for healing is to build a simple personal ritual around a single song. It doesn’t need to be dramatic or complicated. In fact, the more ordinary it is, the better it can slip into your daily life.

You might choose a Beatles song that always steadies you, or a Buddy Holly track that reminds you of resilience and lightness. Or you might choose a new piece of music that seems to hold your feelings without judgment. Once you’ve chosen the song, try this:

  • Find a quiet place where you won’t be interrupted for three to five minutes.
  • Put your phone on Do Not Disturb, except for the music player.
  • Before you press play, set a clear intention: for example, “This is three minutes just to feel what I feel,” or “For this song, I give myself permission to rest.”

Then simply listen. No multitasking, no scrolling, no “shoulds.” Let the lyrics and melody move through you. If memories come up, let them come. If nothing special happens, that’s fine too. The healing is often in the simple act of giving yourself a protected time and space, with the song as your companion.

Listening with your whole body

12‑Track Playlist — Black Blues Originals and the 1960s White Covers They Inspired

Below is a curated 12‑track playlist pairing the original recordings by Muddy Waters, John Lee Hooker, and Howlin’ Wolf with the notable 1960s white covers or artists who built on each song’s riff, groove, or vocal approach. Each entry includes a short note on why the pairing matters and how the cover translated the original into 1960s R&B/rock vocabulary.

 
  1. “Mannish Boy” — Muddy Waters (original) → Rolling Stones (live covers) Note: A raw, call‑and‑response riff anthem; Stones adopted the swagger, riff emphasis, and frontman bravado that became central to their early identity.

  2. “Rollin’ Stone” — Muddy Waters (original) → The Rolling Stones (name/influence) Note: Title and riff inspired the band’s name and early repertoire; the song’s riff‑first structure became a rock naming myth and template.

  3. “Hoochie Coochie Man” — Muddy Waters (original) → Various British blues acts Note: Willie Dixon’s stop‑time riff and boastful lyrics provided a blueprint for riff‑driven rock songwriting and stage persona.

  4. “Little Red Rooster” — Howlin’ Wolf (original) → The Rolling Stones (UK No.1 cover) Note: A direct cover that shows how a Wolf classic could be reworked into a mainstream British hit while retaining its blues core.

  5. “Smokestack Lightnin’” — Howlin’ Wolf (original) → Blues‑rock adaptations (1960s bands) Note: Hypnotic, droning groove and vocal menace that influenced the pacing and mood of heavy blues‑rock performances.

  6. “Spoonful” — Howlin’ Wolf (original) → Cream (cover) Note: Cream’s extended, heavy arrangement amplified Wolf’s dark lyricism into psychedelic blues‑rock territory.

  7. “Boom Boom” — John Lee Hooker (original) → The Animals; garage bands (covers) Note: Hooker’s one‑chord groove translated easily into danceable rock covers and became a staple of 1960s R&B sets.

  8. “Boogie Chillen’” — John Lee Hooker (original) → Garage and British blues groups Note: The primitive, driving boogie was a direct ancestor of many garage‑band rhythms and early rock riffs.

  9. “Crawling King Snake” — John Lee Hooker (original) → The Doors; other rock acts (covers) Note: A blues standard whose spare groove and vocal phrasing were adapted into darker, rock‑oriented arrangements.

  10. “Killing Floor” — Howlin’ Wolf (original) → Jimi Hendrix Experience; later blues‑rock acts (influence/covers) Note: The song’s aggressive riffing and tension influenced heavier electric guitar approaches in late‑60s rock.

  11. “I’m a Man” — Bo Diddley / Muddy/Howlin’ Wolf repertoire (original roots) → British R&B bands (covers/adaptations) Note: The assertive, rhythmic vocal delivery and riff patterns in this family of songs fed into the swagger and rhythmic drive of many 1960s acts.

  12. “One Bourbon, One Scotch, One Beer” — John Lee Hooker / original variants → George Thorogood; 1960s–70s rock adaptations Note: A narrative blues standard that later rock performers reworked into barroom rock staples, showing how blues storytelling migrated into rock performance.

  13. Short listening guide

  • Start with the originals to hear the raw grooves, vocal power, and lyrical economy that made these songs adaptable.

  • Then listen to the covers to hear how 1960s artists amplified riffs, added rock instrumentation, and reframed vocal delivery for new audiences.

  • Pay attention to three transmission routes: recorded 78s/LPs, American Folk Blues Festival tours, and British musicians’ record collections — each helped move these songs from Black blues clubs into mainstream rock. HONORING AFRICAN AMERICAN ROOTS FOUNDATION MUSIC April 1, 2026, by Bri Lane Loving You!!!

Many people think of music as something they process with their ears and mind, but healing listening involves the whole body. When you listen to a song that touches you, notice what happens physically.

Do certain harmonies give you goosebumps, like the stacked vocals the Beatles were so famous for? Does a certain guitar tone—like Buddy Holly’s clean, bright Stratocaster sound—seem to vibrate in your chest? Do you feel your jaw unclench, or your hands soften?

Try putting one hand on your heart and one on your belly while you listen. Breathe slowly and let the song “massage” your inner space. You’re not analyzing the music; you’re letting it wash through you like warm water. This kind of embodied listening can ease tension and help you feel more grounded, even if you can’t explain why.

Letting lyrics speak for you

One of the secret powers of songs is that they say what we can’t always say ourselves. When Paul McCartney sings “When I find myself in times of trouble,” it gives your own “times of trouble” permission to exist. When Buddy Holly sings about longing or heartache, he’s giving shape and rhythm to feelings that otherwise might sit inside you as a vague heaviness.

You can deepen the healing effect by consciously using the lyrics. For example:

  • Pick a line that really resonates with you and write it down in a journal.
  • Underneath it, write a few sentences about what that line means in your own life right now.
  • Let the song become a kind of mirror, reflecting something true that you needed help seeing.

In this way, you’re not just passively consuming music; you’re in a kind of quiet dialogue with it. The song speaks, you respond, and slowly a deeper understanding of your own feelings begins to emerge.

Returning to the same song over time

The Beatles’ music means different things to people depending on when they hear it in their lives. The same is true of Buddy Holly. A song you danced to as a teenager might become a kind of anchor during a difficult adult season. Healing with music isn’t just about one moment—it can be about returning to the same song many times and letting it travel with you through different chapters.

You might create a small playlist of “healing songs” that you return to often: perhaps a Beatles track that comforts you, a Buddy Holly song that lifts your energy, and a newer piece of music that feels like a gentle hand on your shoulder. Over time, your body starts to recognize these songs as signals of safety. When one of them comes on, your system knows, “I’m allowed to relax now.”

This is why certain songs can make us cry within seconds: they carry a whole history of previous times they helped us survive.

Let music be a companion, not a cure

It’s important to remember that music doesn’t have to “fix” you to be healing. The Beatles never promised that one song would solve your life; Buddy Holly didn’t claim a three‑minute track would erase grief. What they offered instead was presence—something honest, melodic, and human to share the road with you.

When you use music for healing, try to release the idea that you must feel “better” by the end of the song. Instead, ask a gentler question: “Do I feel more accompanied? Do I feel a little less alone in this moment?” If the answer is yes, the song has already done its work. WORDS of LOVE Tell Me How Youi Feel-

***What Makes “Let It Be” So Meaningful in the Lives of So Many? Jan. 10, ’26

Some songs arrive like visitors in our lives; others take up permanent residence. “Let It Be” by the Beatles is one of those rare songs that seems to move in and stay. Decades after it was written, people still turn to it in moments of grief, confusion, and change. What is it about this song that touches so many hearts, across ages and cultures, and keeps feeling relevant no matter what’s happening in the world?

A song born out of real struggle

Part of the power of “Let It Be” lies in where it came from. Paul McCartney has said that the song was inspired by a dream of his mother, Mary, who died when he was a teenager. In the dream, she appeared to him during a stressful period in his life, saying, “It will be all right, just let it be.” That origin matters, because we can feel the authenticity behind the words. This isn’t abstract philosophy; it’s a message of comfort from someone he loved and lost.

When listeners learn this backstory, the line “Mother Mary comes to me, speaking words of wisdom, let it be” takes on an intimate, human quality. Even if we interpret “Mother Mary” in a spiritual or religious sense, we can still hear the voice of someone kind and wise, stepping into our troubled minds with a simple, soothing instruction. The song carries the emotional weight of a real family story, and that makes its comfort feel earned, not manufactured.

Simple words for complicated feelings

Another reason “Let It Be” is so meaningful is its language. The lyrics are incredibly simple. There are no clever metaphors or dense poetic twists. Lines like “When I find myself in times of trouble” and “In my hour of darkness” speak in straightforward, everyday words. Ironically, this simplicity is what makes the song able to hold complicated feelings.

People rarely think in poetry when they’re really suffering; their inner voice sounds more like, “I’m overwhelmed” or “I don’t know what to do.” The language of “Let It Be” mirrors that. It doesn’t judge or lecture; it just acknowledges the difficulty: there is trouble, there is darkness, there is broken heartedness in the world. By not rushing too quickly to a “solution,” the song validates the listener’s experience first.

Then, the refrain “Let it be” offers a gentle shift—not a command to fight, fix, or escape, but an invitation to soften around what is happening. For many people, that’s exactly what they need: permission to stop struggling for a moment and simply breathe.

A melody that feels like a blessing

If the lyrics are the mind of the song, the melody is its heart. “Let It Be” uses a simple, hymn‑like melodic line that’s easy to remember and easy to sing along with. It doesn’t show off. Instead, it moves in a stepwise, reassuring way, almost like someone walking beside you at a calm, steady pace.

The chorus lifts slightly higher than the verse, giving a sense of rising above the trouble for a moment. The phrase “Let it be” repeats, but never in a harsh or demanding way; it feels more like a soothing mantra. Many listeners describe feeling their shoulders relax or their breathing slow when the chorus comes back around. It has the shape of a blessing: it rises, opens, and settles gently, leaving behind a sense of acceptance and peace.

This melodic simplicity also means the song can be covered in many styles—piano, guitar, choirs, even solo voices in quiet rooms—and still retain its emotional effect. That flexibility has helped it travel across generations and musical tastes.

Harmony that balances sorrow and hope

Harmonically, “Let It Be” walks a delicate line between sadness and optimism. The chords are mostly straightforward, but there’s a subtle blend of major and minor flavors that keeps the song from feeling either too dark or too cheerful. This balance is important. If the song were purely major and upbeat, it might feel like it was minimizing the listener’s pain. If it were all minor and gloomy, it might deepen despair instead of easing it.

Instead, the harmony feels like a voice that can sit with your sadness while still believing in light. When the chorus arrives, the music leans toward a more resolved, major sound, giving the sense that even though life is complicated, there’s a deeper stability underneath. For listeners, this creates a feeling that “Yes, things are hard, but I’m held by something steady.”

Acceptance without giving up

The phrase “let it be” can be misunderstood as passivity or surrender in a negative sense, but the song doesn’t carry that energy. It doesn’t say “give up” or “stop caring.” It suggests something more subtle: allowing what we cannot control, while trusting that some kind of answer or meaning will emerge in its own time. “There will be an answer, let it be” is not a promise that everything will instantly improve; it is a reminder that life is larger than our current confusion.

This nuance is why so many people turn to the song in times of grief, illness, or major transition. It doesn’t try to convince them that everything is fine when it clearly isn’t. Instead, it offers a way to live inside the not‑knowing. For many, that’s deeply healing: being allowed to lean into acceptance, without losing hope.

A shared song for private pain

“Let It Be” is also meaningful because it operates on two levels at once: it feels intensely personal, yet it has become a communal anthem. People play it at funerals, memorials, and vigils; they sing it alone in their cars or while washing dishes at the end of a hard day. Each listener brings their own story—lost parents, broken relationships, health struggles, world events—and the song seems to make space for all of it.

When a song like this is shared, it quietly tells us, “You’re not the only one who feels this.” Knowing that millions of others have wept or found comfort to the same melody creates a sense of invisible community. We may never meet those people, but we’re connected through this piece of music. That shared experience can make our own burdens feel a little lighter.

A companion that grows with us

Over time, “Let It Be” can become a kind of lifelong companion. Someone might first hear it as a teenager and feel it as a gentle reassurance. Later, in midlife, it may take on new depth when they face loss or burnout. In old age, the song can become almost like a wise old friend, reminding them to trust the flow of life, even as their own story approaches its closing chapters.

The song doesn’t change, but we do, and as we change, different lines and moments in the music speak to us in new ways. That evolving relationship is a hallmark of a truly meaningful song. It doesn’t lock us into one fixed emotion; it meets us wherever we are and offers a slightly different kind of comfort each time.

> When I listen to “Let It Be,” I hear more than a classic Beatles song. I hear a quiet invitation to breathe, to soften my grip on what I can’t control, and to trust that some deeper wisdom is at work, even when I can’t see it. That’s why, all these years later, the song still feels like a friend I can turn to whenever I need a little musical healing.

If you’d like-

*****The History of African American musicians in genres like blues, jazz, R&B, rock, soul, and pop is one marked by profound innovation and equally profound exploitation. From the 1920s onward, white-dominated music industries in the United States, Britain, Canada, and even parts of the Caribbean (where colonial influences persisted) systematically denied Black artists fair compensation, credit, and control over their work. This exploitation was rooted in the legacies of slavery, segregation, and racial capitalism, where Black labor and creativity were commodified for white profit. Patterns included flat-fee payments instead of royalties, fraudulent contracts, song appropriation through white “covers,” and exclusion from mainstream markets due to Jim Crow-era barriers. While the industry as a whole often exploited artists, Black musicians faced amplified disparities due to illiteracy, lack of legal access, oral cultural traditions clashing with copyright laws, and overt racism. The 1950s-1970s, in particular, saw rock ‘n’ roll and soul explode in popularity, largely built on Black foundations, yet Black creators reaped minimal rewards. This deep dive examines specific ways this occurred, drawing on historical accounts.1920s-1940s: The Race Records Era and Foundations of Exploitation The 1920s marked the dawn of the recording industry, where “race records”—78-rpm discs marketed exclusively to Black audiences—turned Black music into a lucrative business for white-owned labels like Paramount, Columbia, and Okeh. These companies scouted talent in the South, recording blues, jazz, and gospel artists during one-off sessions, but paid them flat fees (often $25-50 per side) with no royalties, contracts, or ongoing benefits. Songs were often unpublished or registered under label names, preventing artists from profiting as hits spread. Segregation limited radio play and tours to Black venues, capping earnings, while white executives devalued Black work as “primitive” or non-serious, echoing slavery’s commodification of Black bodies and talents. Specific ways of exploitation:
  • Flat Fees and No Royalties: Artists were treated as disposable labor. For instance, Bessie Smith, the “Empress of the Blues,” sold over 6 million records for Columbia in the 1920s-1930s, generating millions in revenue, but received no royalties due to her illiteracy and exclusion from royalty systems like ASCAP (which favored white composers).
     
    history.com
    Similarly, Big Bill Broonzy recorded hundreds of blues tracks but got nothing beyond initial payments, as he lacked knowledge to negotiate.
     
    history.com
  • Appropriation and Pseudonyms: Labels used fake names or omitted credits to obscure artists’ identities, limiting their fame and bargaining power. Mobile recording units in the South exploited rural, impoverished musicians like those in the Mississippi Delta, who owned nothing but their talent and lived in conditions akin to serfdom.
     
    events.asucollegeoflaw.com
  • Black-Owned Label Failures: Harry Pace’s Black Swan Records (1921-1923) attempted to counter this but collapsed due to white-controlled pressing plants, distribution, and capital shortages, absorbed by Paramount.
     
    history.com
In Britain and Canada, similar dynamics played out through imported U.S. records, where Black jazz influences were repackaged for white audiences without crediting origins. Caribbean artists, influenced by calypso and later reggae precursors, faced colonial exploitation when their styles were mined by British labels like EMI, often without fair pay. Systemic issues: U.S. copyright law (1909 Act) required written fixation and registration, disadvantaging oral/improvisational Black traditions. Ideas like rhythms or styles weren’t protected, allowing imitation.
 
events.asucollegeoflaw.com
This era set the stage for later decades, with artists like King Oliver (jazz pioneer) dying in poverty in 1938 after working menial jobs, despite his innovations.
 
events.asucollegeoflaw.com
1950s: Rock ‘n’ Roll and the Cover Song Theft The 1950s saw rock ‘n’ roll emerge as a global phenomenon, but it was essentially whitewashed R&B and blues. White artists and labels in the U.S., Britain, and Canada profited by covering Black originals, outselling them on segregated radio (e.g., “white” stations played clean versions). Black musicians were locked into unfair contracts, selling publishing rights for pennies, while managers (often white) claimed credits. This denied royalties and credit, transferring wealth to whites. Specific ways:
  • White Covers Outselling Originals: Pat Boone’s sanitized versions of Little Richard’s “Tutti Frutti” and Fats Domino’s hits topped charts, while originals were confined to “race” markets.
     
    events.asucollegeoflaw.com
    Elvis Presley covered Big Mama Thornton’s “Hound Dog” (1952 original), earning millions, but Thornton got a one-time $500 fee with no royalties.
     
    thelovepost.global
    Bo Diddley’s hits were similarly covered, preventing his crossover success.
  • Cheap Rights Sales and Fraudulent Credits: Little Richard sold “Tutti Frutti” publishing for $50 to his manager’s dummy company, with credits including false names.
     
    events.asucollegeoflaw.com
    Chuck Berry faced similar issues; his guitar riffs defined rock, but he received minimal compensation amid legal battles.
  • Manager Exploitation: Frankie Lymon & the Teenagers’ “Why Do Fools Fall in Love” (1956) had credits stolen by manager Morris Levy, excluding co-writers and denying royalties until lawsuits decades later.
     
    events.asucollegeoflaw.com
In Britain, labels like Decca imported and repackaged U.S. Black music for acts like the Rolling Stones, who credited influences but profited disproportionately. Canadian radio followed U.S. segregation, limiting Black airplay.1960s-1970s: Soul, R&B, and Persistent Royalty Denials As soul and R&B dominated, exploitation shifted to underreported earnings, pension fraud, and label control. Motown (Black-owned but navigating white systems) offered some progress, but many artists elsewhere faced the same issues. White British invasion bands (e.g., Beatles, Led Zeppelin) borrowed heavily from Black blues without always compensating, while U.S. labels like Atlantic underpaid soul acts. Specific ways:
  • Underreported Earnings and Pension Scams: Sam Moore of Sam & Dave (hits like “Soul Man,” 1967) earned ~$3 million in the 1960s but had only $66,000 reported, resulting in a tiny pension; a 1993 lawsuit against AFTRA revealed systemic fraud affecting mostly Black artists, settling for $8.4 million in 2002.
     
    theconversation.com
  • No Royalties for Hits: Ruth Brown (Atlantic’s “house that Ruth built” in the 1950s-1960s) fought in the 1980s to recover royalties, exposing how labels deducted “expenses” to zero out payments.
     
    news.westernu.ca
    Professor Longhair got nothing for his Mardi Gras anthem.
     
    events.asucollegeoflaw.com
  • Appropriation in Rock/Soul Fusion: Led Zeppelin’s uncredited use of Willie Dixon’s blues lyrics (e.g., “Whole Lotta Love,” 1969) led to later settlements, but initial profits went unshared.
     
    events.asucollegeoflaw.com
    British acts like Eric Clapton built careers on Black delta blues without equitable sharing.
Caribbean influences (e.g., ska evolving into reggae) were exploited by British labels, with artists like Bob Marley facing early unfair deals before gaining leverage. Systemic Roots and Broader Impacts Linking to slavery, exploitation treated Black artists as “assets” for white profit, with patterns like dispossession (e.g., land loss post-emancipation mirrored royalty loss).
 
theconversation.com
Copyright laws favored written forms over oral ones, and low originality thresholds enabled imitation.
 
events.asucollegeoflaw.com
Industry racism excluded Blacks from power, creating a “racialized economy” where they innovated but whites capitalized.
 
theconversation.com
Estimates suggest billions in lost wealth, harming communities spiritually and economically. To visualize key exploitation peaks, here’s a simple bar chart of representative cases by decade (based on documented examples; not exhaustive):
 
(Data points approximate prominent cases like Smith, Broonzy, Oliver in early decades; Richard, Berry, Lymon in 1950s; Moore, Brown in later.) Conclusion This exploitation wasn’t incidental but structural, denying generations of African American musicians wealth and legacy in an industry they built. Reforms like the Rhythm & Blues Foundation (1980s) began addressing back royalties, but echoes persist today. Understanding this history highlights the need for equity in compensation and recognition.
 
51 results
Modern Reforms Addressing Exploitation in the Music Industry The music industry’s history of exploiting African American musicians—through unfair contracts, denied royalties, and racial disparities—has prompted incremental reforms since the 1980s. While systemic issues persist, particularly in the streaming era where low per-stream payouts (often $0.003–$0.005) disproportionately affect Black artists dominant in genres like hip-hop and R&B, key advancements have focused on legacy compensation, transparency, and equity. These include legislative changes, organizational efforts, corporate audits, and ongoing advocacy. Progress is uneven: reforms like the Music Modernization Act (MMA) have delivered millions to legacy artists, but critics argue they fail to dismantle unequal bargaining power or address modern streaming inequities rooted in historical racism. Key Reforms from the 1980s–2010s
  • Rhythm & Blues Foundation (1988–ongoing): Founded after Ruth Brown’s campaign exposed Atlantic Records’ royalty denials, with initial funding from Ahmet Ertegun ($1.5 million) and later Berry Gordy and Universal Music Group. It has distributed over $3 million in grants for medical, financial, and emergency aid to hundreds of pre-1970s R&B pioneers (e.g., Ruth Brown, Sam & Dave). The Pioneer Awards honored over 150 artists, preserving legacies while providing direct support. Outcomes include life-saving assistance and recognition, though it’s charitable rather than systemic royalty recovery.
  • Lawsuits and Settlements (1990s–2010s): Artists like Sam Moore (Sam & Dave) sued unions and labels for underreported earnings, settling for millions (e.g., $8.4 million in 2002). Ruth Brown’s 1980s activism led to industry concessions. These highlighted fraudulent accounting but resulted in piecemeal payouts.
Major Legislative Reform: The Orrin G. Hatch–Bob Goodlatte Music Modernization Act (MMA, 2018)Signed unanimously into law, the MMA modernized copyright for the digital age:
  • Title II (CLASSICS Act): Closed the “pre-1972 loophole,” granting federal protection and digital performance royalties to legacy recordings. Pre-MMA, services like SiriusXM/Pandora paid nothing for classics (e.g., Otis Redding, Sam & Dave). Post-MMA, SoundExchange distributed over $10 million in the first year to pre-1972 artists/estates, many Black soul/R&B legends.
  • Other Provisions: Created the Mechanical Licensing Collective (MLC) for streamlined streaming mechanicals; recognized producers/engineers for royalties.
Impact on Black Musicians: Directly benefited estates of icons like Marvin Gaye and Aretha Franklin. Legacy artists (e.g., Abdul “Duke” Fakir of the Four Tops) reported fairer compensation from digital plays. However, it didn’t address post-1972 disparities or streaming’s low rates, leaving unequal label deals intact.2020s: Post-George Floyd Reckoning and Streaming Challenges The 2020 Black Lives Matter movement amplified calls for reparations and equity:
  • Black Music Action Coalition (BMAC, 2020–ongoing): Advocacy group demanding accountability. Pushed for executive diversity, fair contracts, and back royalties. Issued “report cards” grading labels on Black representation/progress.
  • Corporate Audits and Pledges: BMG (2020) audited contracts, finding racial disparities in royalties; pledged corrections. Universal/Warner/Sony committed $100 million+ to social justice funds and diversity hires. Some explored repaying exploitative historical deals.
  • Reparations Discussions: Calls for direct payments to descendants/heirs (e.g., Bessie Smith). Canada’s ADVANCE collective advocated historical royalty audits.
  • Streaming-Specific Advocacy: Low payouts persist; UN reports (2020s) recommend new “equitable remuneration” royalties directly to artists (including non-featured performers). EU Parliament (2024) pushed transparency/minimum rates; France set minimums (2022). US proposals (e.g., Rashida Tlaib’s resolution) seek new royalty programs. Groups like United Musicians and Allied Workers advocate user-centric models (pay based on individual listening) over pro-rata (big pot favoring megastars).
Ongoing Issues and Criticisms:
  • Exploitation echoes: Young Black artists face lopsided deals (e.g., Megan Thee Stallion’s 2020 lawsuit).
  • Streaming inequities: Black genres dominate but yield low returns; “payola” via playlists persists.
  • Partial Progress: MMA aided legacies, but modern artists need ownership reforms (e.g., California’s FAIR Act proposals for contract termination).
Reform
Year
Key Benefit for Black/Legacy Artists
Limitations
Rhythm & Blues Foundation
1988+
Direct aid ($3M+) to pioneers
Charitable, not royalties
MMA (CLASSICS Act)
2018
$10M+ digital royalties for pre-1972
No fix for current streaming
BMAC Advocacy
2020+
Diversity pledges, audits
Implementation varies
EU/France Streaming Rules
2022–2024
Minimum rates, transparency
Not global; non-binding in parts
Reforms have provided tangible relief—especially for legacies—and heightened awareness, but full equity requires dismantling racialized contracts, boosting Black executive power, and overhauling streaming economics. Advocacy continues, with BMAC and others pushing for measurable, binding change.
51 web pages
Detailed MMA Impact Analysis
51 results
6 results
14 results
Detailed Impact Analysis of the Music Modernization Act (MMA)The Music Modernization Act (MMA), signed into law on October 11, 2018, represents a landmark overhaul of U.S. copyright law tailored to the digital streaming era. It comprises three main titles: Title I (Music Licensing Modernization Act, establishing the Mechanical Licensing Collective or MLC), Title II (Classics Protection and Access Act or CLASSICS Act, addressing pre-1972 sound recordings), and Title III (Allocation for Music Producers or AMP Act, formalizing producer royalties). This analysis evaluates the MMA’s impacts from 2018 to 2025, focusing on royalty distributions, benefits to legacy and African American musicians, match rates and unmatched funds, criticisms, and broader industry effects. Data is drawn from official reports, with emphasis on how the MMA has addressed historical exploitation while revealing persistent gaps. By 2025, the MMA has facilitated over $3 billion in mechanical royalties via the MLC and contributed to SoundExchange’s cumulative distributions exceeding $12 billion, including pre-1972 payouts.
 
Key Provisions and Implementation Timeline
  • Title I (MLMA): Created the MLC (launched January 2021) to administer a blanket license for mechanical royalties from digital music providers (DMPs like Spotify). It centralizes collection, matching, and distribution, replacing inefficient song-by-song licensing. DMPs pay into the system, and the MLC matches royalties to songwriters/publishers at no cost to rights holders.
     
  • Title II (CLASSICS Act): Extended federal copyright protection to pre-1972 sound recordings, closing a loophole that denied digital royalties for classics (e.g., early blues, jazz, R&B). Royalties are now collected via SoundExchange for non-interactive streams (e.g., Pandora).
     
  • Title III (AMP Act): Codified royalty shares for producers, mixers, and engineers (2-5% of artist royalties), addressing underpayment in production credits.
     
    copyright.gov
    Implementation began in 2019, with full MLC operations in 2021. By 2025, the MLC’s database holds over 44 million works, and SoundExchange has processed billions in distributions.
     
    themlc.com
Royalty Distributions and Financial Impacts The MMA has significantly increased royalty flows, particularly for mechanicals and pre-1972 recordings.
  • MLC Distributions (Mechanical Royalties): From 2021-2025, the MLC has distributed over $3.3 billion in matched royalties, including blanket licenses and historical unmatched funds transferred from DMPs (~$427 million initially).
     
    Annual breakdowns show steady growth until a slight dip in 2024 due to market fluctuations:
    • 2021: $473.3 million (initial launch, partial year)
    • 2022: $586.7 million (including $71.5 million from reprocessing)
    • 2023: $842.2 million (peak, with $88.4 million reprocessed)
    • 2024: $771.1 million (including $54.2 million reprocessed)
    • 2025 (partial, through October): Estimated ~$600-700 million, pushing cumulative past $3.3 billion.
       
      musicbusinessworldwide.com
    Reprocessing (re-matching older data) added $288.9 million across 2021-2024, improving payouts by 7.3% on average.
     
    themlc.com
    Match rates rose from 84.4% (initial) to 91.7% by 2025, thanks to database enhancements and outreach.
     
    themlc.com
  • SoundExchange Distributions (Performance Royalties, Including Pre-1972): Cumulative payouts reached $12 billion by early 2025, up from $9 billion in 2022 and $11 billion in 2024.
     
    Quarterly figures indicate annual totals around $1 billion in recent years (e.g., Q1 2025: $253 million; Q2 2025: $241 million).
     
    Pre-1972 specifics: Over $10 million distributed in the first months post-MMA (2018-2019), addressing prior annual losses of $60-70 million.
     
    By 2025, pre-1972 royalties are integrated into overall distributions, benefiting thousands of legacy recordings
 
Benefits to Legacy and African American Musicians The MMA has been transformative for legacy artists, many of whom are African American pioneers in genres like blues, soul, and R&B, historically exploited through denied royalties.
  • Pre-1972 Protections: Thousands of artists (e.g., Motown’s Supremes, via advocate Mary Wilson) now receive digital performance royalties for classics recorded before 1972.
     
     
    This directly counters past inequities, where Black musicians lost billions due to loopholes.
     
    Initial payouts exceeded $10 million, with ongoing integration into SoundExchange’s $1 billion+ annual distributions.
     
    recordingacademy.com
  • Mechanical Royalties for Songwriters: The MLC’s distributions have reached over 50,000 members, including legacy songwriters, with tools for claiming unmatched funds (~$400 million held as of 2025).
     
    Outreach recovered ~$1 million for “missing” members, many underrepresented.
     
    themlc.com
  • Equity Focus: Post-2020 BLM movement, the MMA’s transparency has supported advocacy (e.g., BMAC’s report cards), highlighting benefits for Black creators who dominate streaming genres.
     
    blackprelaw.studentgroups.columbia.edu
    However, full reparations for historical theft remain unaddressed.
     
    researchgate.net
Criticisms and Gaps Despite successes, the MMA has drawn criticism for incomplete reforms:
  • Unmatched and “Black Box” Funds: ~$544 million in blanket unmatched royalties held as of 2025, plus $196 million historical, disproportionately affecting independent/legacy artists due to poor data.
     
    Critics argue distribution favors major publishers.
     
    bclawreview.bc.edu
  • Imbalances in Compensation: Streaming rates remain low; the MMA didn’t overhaul rate-setting, leading to calls for the American Music Fairness Act (AMFA) for terrestrial radio royalties.
     
    Black artists feel structural inequities persist.
     
  • Implementation Shortcomings: Early unmatched peaked at $561 million (2021); while reduced, delays and complexity hinder small creators.
     
    digitalmusicnews.com
    No equitable distributions occurred by 2025.
     
    themlc.com
  • Broader Critique: Seen as a “compromise” benefiting DMPs more than artists, leaving loopholes open.
     
Recent Developments (2023-2025)
  • Growth and Recognition: MLC named a “Most Innovative Company” in 2025; distributions hit $3 billion milestone.
     
    blog.themlc.com
    SoundExchange surpassed $12 billion, with Q1-Q2 2025 at $494 million.
     
    soundexchange.com
  • Ongoing Advocacy: Reflections on MMA’s 5-year anniversary (2023) emphasized progress but need for AMFA.
     
    @SoundExchange
    2025 analyses highlight generational impacts on Black musicians, calling for further reforms.
     
Conclusion The MMA has delivered substantial financial relief, distributing billions and closing key loopholes, particularly benefiting African American legacy artists by rectifying pre-1972 denials and streamlining mechanicals. However, unmatched funds, low rates, and lingering inequities underscore it as a “first step” rather than a complete solution.
 
bclawreview.bc.edu
Future progress may hinge on complementary laws like AMFA and enhanced equity measures to fully address exploitation’s legacy.
59 pages
34 results
Comparison of the Music Modernization Act (MMA) and the American Music Fairness Act (AMFA)The Orrin G. Hatch–Bob Goodlatte Music Modernization Act (MMA), enacted in 2018, and the American Music Fairness Act (AMFA), a proposed bipartisan bill reintroduced in January 2025 (H.R. 861 in the House; S. 326 in the Senate), both aim to address inequities in music royalties. However, they target different aspects of the system: the MMA modernizes digital-era licensing and protections, while AMFA seeks to close a longstanding loophole for terrestrial (AM/FM) radio broadcasts. As of December 2025, the MMA is fully implemented and has distributed billions in royalties, whereas AMFA remains pending in committee after reintroduction and a December 2025 Senate hearing featuring testimony from artists like Gene Simmons. Key Differences and Similarities
Aspect
Music Modernization Act (MMA, 2018)
American Music Fairness Act (AMFA, Proposed 2025)
Status
Enacted law (October 11, 2018); fully operational.
Proposed bill; reintroduced January 2025; referred to committees; no passage yet despite hearings and bipartisan support.
Primary Focus
Digital streaming licensing, mechanical royalties for songwriters/publishers, pre-1972 recordings, and producer royalties.
Establishing performance royalties for sound recordings on terrestrial (AM/FM) radio, aligning with digital/satellite platforms.
Royalties Affected
– Mechanical (reproduction/distribution, e.g., streams/downloads). – Digital performance for pre-1972 recordings. – Producer/engineer shares.
Sound recording performance royalties (paid to artists/labels); does not affect songwriter mechanicals or compositions.
Beneficiaries
Songwriters, publishers, legacy artists (pre-1972), producers/engineers/mixers.
Performing artists, session musicians, vocalists, record labels (for sound recordings).
Platforms Covered
Digital services (Spotify, Apple Music, Pandora, SiriusXM); closes pre-1972 digital loophole.
Terrestrial radio (AM/FM broadcasts); exempts or caps fees for small/local stations.
Key Provisions
– Creates Mechanical Licensing Collective (MLC) for blanket mechanical licenses. – Extends federal protection/digital royalties to pre-1972 recordings via SoundExchange. – Codifies producer royalties (AMP Act).
– Creates public performance right for sound recordings on over-the-air radio. – Rates set by Copyright Royalty Board (CRB). – Flat low fees for small stations ($10–$500/year); protections for noncommercial/public radio.
Impact to Date
– MLC distributed >$3 billion in mechanicals (2021–2025). – SoundExchange >$12 billion cumulative, including pre-1972 payouts. – Improved matching/transparency for songwriters.
None yet (not law); if passed, would generate new royalties from radio’s ~$14 billion annual revenue, benefiting artists similarly to streaming.
Opposition
Minimal post-passage; broad industry consensus.
Strong from broadcasters (NAB argues burden on local stations); supported by artists, SoundExchange, Recording Academy.
Relation to Exploitation Reforms
Addresses historical denials (e.g., pre-1972 loophole affecting many Black legacy artists); streamlines digital pay.
Targets “century-old inequity” where radio profits without paying artists (unlike streaming); seen as completing MMA’s unfinished work.
Broader Context and Overlap
  • Complementary Nature: The MMA deliberately excluded terrestrial radio performance royalties (a provision from earlier bills like Fair Play Fair Pay Act was dropped for consensus). AMFA is often described as the “next step” or “unfinished business” of the MMA, extending artist compensation to traditional radio while preserving songwriter royalties (paid separately via ASCAP/BMI).
  • Equity for African American Musicians: Both aid legacy creators. MMA’s pre-1972 fix benefits pioneers in blues, soul, and R&B. AMFA would provide ongoing radio royalties for genres heavily played on terrestrial stations, addressing exploitation where radio uses Black-innovated music without artist pay.
  • Challenges: MMA faced implementation critiques (e.g., unmatched funds). AMFA faces broadcaster resistance, arguing promotional value of radio play and potential harm to small stations (mitigated by caps).
If enacted, AMFA would harmonize U.S. law more closely with global standards (most countries require radio performance royalties). Progress depends on congressional action post-2025 hearings. The MMA has proven transformative for digital royalties; AMFA could do the same for broadcast.
34 pages
56 results
Global Music Royalty Standards Overview Music royalties are governed by a complex patchwork of national laws, international treaties (e.g., Berne Convention for compositions, Rome Convention and WPPT for sound recordings), and collective management organizations (CMOs). There are two primary copyright categories:
  • Musical Works (Compositions): Rights for lyrics/melody (songwriters/publishers). Performance royalties are nearly universal worldwide, including for terrestrial (AM/FM) radio, collected by PROs/CMOs like ASCAP/BMI (US), PRS (UK), GEMA (Germany), SACEM (France).
  • Sound Recordings (Masters): Rights for recorded performances (artists/labels). “Neighboring rights” or performer/master royalties vary significantly, especially for terrestrial radio.
Global collections in 2024 highlight growth:
  • Recorded music revenues: $29.6 billion (+4.8% YoY, IFPI Global Music Report 2025), driven by streaming (67% of total).
  • Creator royalties (mostly compositions): €13.97 billion (+6.6% YoY, CISAC Global Collections Report 2025), with digital exceeding €5 billion (35%+ of total).
Key Royalty Types and Global Standards
Royalty Type
Description
Global Standard
U.S. Exception
Mechanical
Reproduction (streams/downloads/physical)
Universal; collected via MLC (US) or CMOs elsewhere. Streaming dominant globally.
Streamlined via MMA (2018); high volumes but low per-stream rates (~$0.003–0.005).
Performance (Compositions)
Public performance/broadcast (radio, venues, streaming)
Universal, including terrestrial radio; PROs/CMOs collect worldwide.
Paid for radio/streaming via ASCAP/BMI/SESAC/GMR.
Performance (Sound Recordings)
Public performance of masters (artists/labels)
Paid in ~100+ countries for terrestrial radio/digital; equivalents to SoundExchange (e.g., PPL UK, GVL Germany).
Digital only (SoundExchange for non-interactive streams/satellite); no terrestrial radio pay (AMFA proposed to fix).
Synchronization
Use in TV/film/ads/games
Negotiated directly; growing globally (~2-22% of collections).
Similar; rising with content boom.
Terrestrial Radio Performance Royalties for Sound Recordings: The Major Divide The U.S. is an outlier: No royalties paid to performers/labels for AM/FM plays (only songwriters get paid). This costs U.S. creators ~$200-300 million annually in withheld foreign reciprocals.
  • Countries that pay performer/master royalties on terrestrial radio: Nearly all major markets (e.g., UK, Germany, France, Japan, Canada, Australia, Brazil, South Korea, Mexico, most EU). Collected via CMOs like PPL (UK), GVL (Germany), CAPIF (Argentina).
  • Exceptions (no pay): U.S., China (recently added limited rights), Iran, North Korea, Rwanda.
  • Impact: Foreign CMOs often withhold U.S. royalties due to non-reciprocity. SoundExchange has agreements with 66+ international CMOs for reciprocal collection.
Regional Highlights (2024 Data)
  • Europe: Leads collections (58% CISAC share); strong neighboring rights, high digital growth.
  • North America (mostly U.S.): Dominant in recorded revenues but lags in terrestrial performer pay.
  • Asia-Pacific: Fast growth (e.g., Japan strong in physical/digital; emerging in India/China).
  • Latin America/Africa/MENA: Double-digit growth (+22%+ regions), streaming-driven.
Standards continue evolving with streaming dominance, AI challenges (training on copyrighted works), and pushes for equity (e.g., U.S. AMFA). Creators should register with local/national CMOs and SoundExchange (for international) to maximize collections.
56 pages
31 results
AI Challenges in Music Royalties (as of December 2025) 
4. Positive Developments
  • AI for royalty recovery: Companies like Nashville’s Muserk use AI to scan billions of streaming lines, recovering $100M+ in unreported royalties for artists.
  • Licensed ecosystems: Platforms like Klay secured deals with all majors for ethical training; Sweden’s STIM offers licenses compensating rights holders.
Ongoing and Future Outlook Advocacy groups (e.g., Recording Academy, BMAC) push for reforms: mandatory consent for training, transparency in datasets, and equitable remuneration. Global standards lag—EU debates opt-outs, UK considers exceptions—while U.S. fair use defenses encourage settlements over court rulings.AI amplifies historical inequities in music royalties but also offers tools for fairness. Balanced regulation ensuring “consent, credit, and compensation” is critical to prevent further erosion of creator earnings.
 
31 web pages

Generative AI- A Beautiful Uplifting Humanizing, Democratizing Natural Evolution Artist Partner in OUR HUMAN BEING CULTURE, ARTISTRY & CREATIVITY in SYNC with EVERYTHING WE CHERISH IN OUR MUSIC & ARTISTS!!! Dec. 27, 2025, by Brianca #OUR WORLD CAN BE BETTER, SO MUCH BETTER!!

Oh- $Billionaire Music Companies and CHOSEN SPECIAL ELITES might lose their IRON FIST wealth and control over the Music Industry and our enslaved Starving Drugged Up Artists Class? A wealthy and all-powerful elite cabal historically APPROPRIATING EVERYTHING from Cultural Minorities like African Americans? “You Ain’t Nothin’ but as Hound Dog” (Big Mama Thorton) if you ain’t white in the emerging Music Recording Industry??? Thankfully, white recording studio blazing trails pioneer, Sam Phillips recorded IKE TURNER and his RHYTHM KINGS in March, 1951 “ROCKET 88” arguably the first Rock n’ Roll song heralding ‘something breakthrough new, inspiring later WHITE SUCCESS by Bill Haley and the Comets, “Rock Around the Clock!” Sam Phillips reportedly exclaimed repeatedly, If I could find a WHITE Man who held the ‘Negro Sound’ and the ‘Negro Feel,’ I could make a $Billion Dollars! THAT is what I HEARD in ELVIS!’ mantra of the White Music Industry into the ’60’s and beyond! White singers covering Black songs and artist bringing in $Bazillions for the Music Labels! White Pat Boone covering $Successfully Little Richard and TUTTI FRUITI- you got to be kidding!!!

Did Stones or Beatles CREATE ‘derivatives- generative human ai’ or actually create new songs? Please research your favorite songs and let everyone know if our loved songs are new OR derivatives altered slightly and patched together! We can draw from historical accounts, interviews, and analyses to trace potential derivatives and inspirations- ripoffs? Rock riffs often build on blues and R&B roots, so “derivative” here means influenced or echoing earlier elements, not outright copying note by note or precise rhythm. The Rolling Stones’ “(I Can’t Get No) Satisfaction” (1965)
 
  • Blues roots: The title and thematic dissatisfaction echo Muddy Waters’ 1955 blues track “I Can’t Be Satisfied,” which Richards and Jagger admired as part of their Chicago blues obsession (they recorded at Chess Records, home to Waters). Rolling Stones RIPPED OFF THEIR NAME from Muddy Waters signature song- Rollin’ Stone!
     
    Chuck Berry’s energetic style also shaped the Stones’ overall sound, indirectly feeding into the riff’s drive.
     
    faroutmagazine.co.uk
  • Other contributors: Bo Diddley and broader R&B influences from their early covers added to the song’s swagger.
     
    performingsongwriter.com
    The fuzz tone was innovative, inspired by Richards’ use of a Gibson Maestro FZ-1 fuzzbox.
     
    500songs.com
Roy Orbison’s “Oh, Pretty Woman” (1964) almost identical guitar riff inspiring Richard’s riff in “Satisfaction?” But there’s a strong connection to the rhythm and beat. The Stones toured with Orbison in 1965, hearing “Pretty Woman” nightly, and Charlie Watts has said the steady drum pattern in “Satisfaction” was borrowed from it.
 
Roy Orbison Jr. has even claimed “Satisfaction” is a derivative overall. WE AGREE it’s the same guitar riff!
 
ultimate-guitar.com
So, yes—to some extent, it’s a rhythmic steal if not guitar ripoff!
The Beatles’ “I Feel Fine” (1964) guitar riff here is famous for its feedback intro (an accidental innovation during recording).
 
beatlesebooks.com
John Lennon and George Harrison both credited it to Bobby Parker’s 1961 R&B track “Watch Your Step,” which they loved and covered in live sets—the riff is a direct evolution, with Lennon speeding it up and adding distortion.
 
Ringo Starr’s Latin-inspired beat draws from Ray Charles’ “What’d I Say.”
 
the-paulmccartney-project.com
The Beatles toured with Orbison in 1963, so they knew his work, but influences what songs- yet to check! 
 
The Beatles’ “Paperback Writer” (1966) features a punchy, distorted guitar riff (played by Paul McCartney on an Epiphone Casino, with Harrison on a Gibson SG).
 
beatlesbible.com
Lennon called it the “son of ‘Day Tripper'” due to the heavy riff style—both emphasize bold, descending guitar lines.
 
youtube.com
The boosted bass (McCartney’s Rickenbacker) was inspired by The Beach Boys’ Pet Sounds and Wilson Pickett’s soul records, pushing engineer Geoff Emerick to innovate recording techniques.
 
Did “Pretty Woman” inspire it? Indirectly yes—Orbison’s riff influenced “Day Tripper” (1965), which shares a similar marching rhythm and structure.
 
Roy Orbison Jr. notes “Paperback Writer” as a faster derivative of “Pretty Woman.”
 
ultimate-guitar.com
So, it’s a chain: Orbison → “Day Tripper” → “Paperback Writer.” In summary, these riffs show rock’s interconnected web—blues like Muddy Waters and Bobby Parker laid foundations, while Orbison’s “Pretty Woman” rippled into rhythmic elements for the Stones and Beatles. OUTRIGHT RIPOFFS? but clear evolutions that fueled innovation. Follow the ripoffs AND YOU’LL FIND ALL THE MONEY ORIGINAL SONG CREATORS LOST and perished in general POVERTY and SUFFERING!!!
50 web pages

Chuck Berry created YOU CAN’T CATCH ME, so Beatle John Lennon copied with a slowed down copy but singing almost the same lyrics COME TOGETHER in 1969! The Chiffons created HE’S SO FINE, so Beatle George Harrison created incredibly beautiful MY SWEET LORD! Many successful Music Artists are Monkey hear, Monkey See, Monkey Copy! Chuck Berry created SWEET LITTLE SIXTEEN so Beach Boys created copy SMASH HIT SURFING USA! I checked Paul McCartney’s amazing YESTERDAY and, in a minute, saw an obvious source song by a _ Lane and another source for Yesterday by amazing Nat King Cole if I remember correctly! Paul McCartney is a musical Beloved Artist we CHERISH but he ripped off and absorbed Cultural and Musical influences 24/7 for his Artistry like a sponge and will add ‘others ripped off The Beatles just as much!!!’ Everyone ‘BORROWING’ MUSIC PARTS from one another!!! Fun to look back to Roy Orbison’s, etc.  era and watch all the appropriation from existing songs by new ’60’s groups!

No different than Generative AI Today composing with an experienced Music Artist Composer inputting lyrics, beat, style, feeling- precise artistic talented specifics into song creation but avoiding the $million-dollar costs hiring a studio- Session musicians like The WRECKIING CREW or Detroit’s FUNK BROTHERS and signing a record label deal offering micro-pennies on million dollars earned! Like Dylan’s With God on Our Side reflects an earlier song melody, are most songs essentially derivative of previous songs? What I like About You likely has a 1000+ great songs sounding almost the same- same beat, chord progression, melody, etc.- derivatives. Love Teenage Head’s LET’S SHAKE!  Our Beloved Ed Sheeran addressed the Court- Yes, my song sounds like a bunch of songs because so many songs use the same or similar chord progressions and rhythmic patterns! The BEATLES and every music artist composer absorb tens of thousands of existing songs, Artist Characteristics, Talent and Performances, and Cultural Influences and generate ‘something new’ based on something old or already existing! Same as Generative AI- in the hands of an experienced talented Artist. Buddy Holly & CRICKETS = BEATLES! Roy Orbison, Everly Brothers, Little Richard, Chuck Berry, Howlin’ Wolf & Muddy Waters- ROLLING STONE Magazine & Music Act, Rolling Stones!  EVERYTHING ABOUT The Rolling Stones IS CULTURALLY APPROPRIATED from African Americans without proper compensation- they received pennies, Rolling Stones made $Billions practicing the ART of IMITATING- APPROPRIATING AFRICAN AMERICAN MUSIC, DANCE, VOCALS, STAGE PERFORMANCE, GUITAR PLAYING, etc., Eddie Cochrane- SUMMERTIME BLUES, 1956- great source to create imitated ’60’s song styles.  We easily may trace every Monkey See, Monkey Hear, Monkey Mimic Song!  How many hundreds of millions of Artists did ELVIS INSPIRE & CREATE by his appropriating existing African American Culture, Music, Dance, Performance, Vocals, Emotions, etc.? John Lennon complained everyone was ripping off Beautiful & Brilliant Joni Michell’s SMASH HITS for THEMSELVES before Joni barely finished her songs! As Joni played her songs, listeners accused her of playing signature songs by other artists- who appropriated her hits for themselves- just as America rewarded White Performers only! Welcome AI for Professional Music Creators building new songs specifically by their talents!!! Dec. 27, 2025, Loving You, Brianca Lane #OUR WORLD CAN BE BETTER- SO MUCH BETTER!!!

Introduction to Musical Appropriation

Musical appropriation denotes the process through which one cultural group adopts elements of another’s music, often leading to complex exchanges of influence, creativity, and often exploitation. In the context of African American music, this phenomenon has historical roots that extend deeply into the fabric of American society. The appropriation of African American musical genres by white North American and British musicians has led to significant discussions about cultural exchange, power dynamics, and respect for the origins of these art forms.

Throughout the 20th century, various genres such as jazz, blues, and rock and roll emerged from African American communities, characterized by their unique rhythms, emotional depth, and storytelling traditions. However, as these genres gained popularity, they were often embraced and commercialized by predominantly white artists and record labels. This resulted in a dilution of the original cultural significance, leading to concerns regarding authenticity and cultural ownership. The recognition of African American contributions to music has ebbed and flowed, with periods of appreciation being overshadowed by commercialization and appropriation that stripped these genres of their cultural context.

Historical Context of African American Music

African American music has its roots in the rich cultural heritage of the African continent, where music played an integral role in daily life, spiritual practices, and community bonding. The forced displacement of millions of Africans to the Americas during the Atlantic slave trade marked a significant turning point. Enslaved individuals brought their musical traditions, rhythms, and instruments, which they adapted to the new context of their lives in America. This fusion of African musical elements with European melodies and harmonies laid the groundwork for what would later evolve into distinct genres.

The emergence of spirituals in the 19th century represents one of the earliest forms of African American music, driven by the need for expression, solace, and resistance among enslaved individuals. These songs often contained coded messages, offering hope and community solidarity as well as a means to communicate aspirations for freedom. As African Americans began to gain footholds in urban centers post-Civil War, genres began to diversify significantly, giving rise to blues and jazz in the early 20th century. The blues emerged from the deep, emotional experiences of hardship and resilience, while jazz conceptualized a fresh sound that celebrated improvisation and collaboration, reflecting the very essence of African American culture.

The sociopolitical landscape greatly influenced these musical developments. Systemic racism, segregation, and cultural exclusion shaped not only the creation of African American music but also its reception by broader audiences. The Great Migration, which saw a massive movement of African Americans from the rural South to urban areas in the North, helped to disseminate these musical forms, allowing them to evolve and intermingle with various influences. Genres like gospel, an outpouring of faith and community, further contributed to the cultural tapestry of African American music, providing a potent counter-narrative to the prevailing societal structures of oppression. Understanding this historical context is essential for examining the later appropriation practices and their implications in contemporary society.

Key Approaches to Appropriation by White Musicians

The appropriation of African American music by white musicians has manifested through several notable approaches, each reflecting differing levels of awareness and acknowledgment of the cultural origins of the music. This phenomenon can be categorized broadly into conscious and unconscious appropriations, each showcasing varying degrees of respect and understanding towards the source material.

Conscious appropriation occurs when artists deliberately draw from African American musical styles, often using them as a foundation for their own creations. This method is frequently marked by direct acknowledgment of influences, as seen in the case of Elvis Presley. Presley’s integration of rhythm and blues into his music not only introduced rock and roll to a broader audience but also raised questions regarding cultural credit and authenticity. While he openly embraced these influences, his mainstream success often overshadowed the original African American artists whose work shaped his sound.

Conversely, unconscious appropriation can be less straightforward. In this scenario, white musicians incorporate African American musical elements without necessarily recognizing their origins. A relevant example is the popularity of folk and blues music among white artists in the 1960s, such as Bob Dylan. While Dylan’s work showcased a deep appreciation for the blues tradition, his rise to fame largely occurred within a white-dominated music industry that often failed to credit trailblazing Black artists…

Attitudes Towards Appropriation over Time

The discourse surrounding musical appropriation has undergone significant transformations from the early 20th century to the contemporary era. Initially, the blending of African American musical styles with those of predominantly white musical traditions was often celebrated as a form of cultural innovation. However, with this celebration came a complex undercurrent of exploitation, as the roots and contributions of African American artists were frequently overlooked or misrepresented. This contradiction set the stage for ongoing debates about cultural ownership and appreciation versus appropriation.

During the early years of the 20th century, genres such as jazz and blues began to gain recognition among broader audiences, often through the interpretations of white musicians. Figures like Elvis Presley and the Benny Goodman Orchestra introduced these styles to mainstream audiences, which simultaneously highlighted the creative genius of African American musicians while also diluting their cultural significance. This led to criticism and calls from within the African American community to acknowledge the original artists and their musical creations!

Recognition of African American Contributions

The contributions of African American musicians to the fabric of American music history are profound and extensive. From the spirituals and blues of the early 20th century to the rise of jazz, rock, hip-hop, and R&B, African American artistry has not only shaped musical genres but has also served as a catalyst for social change and cultural exchange. However, the recognition and compensation for these contributions have not always been commensurate with their impact.

A recurring issue within the music industry is the lack of credit often awarded to African American artists for their innovations. Historical accounts indicate that many Black musicians were frequently overlooked in acknowledging their role in the development of various music styles, leading to a significant underrepresentation in both accolades and royalty distributions. For instance, the appropriation of blues and rock music highlights how major white artists garnered fame while their Black counterparts received little recognition and minimal financial reward. This not only undermines the artistic contributions of African American musicians but also perpetuates systemic inequalities within the industry.

Recent movements have sought to shed light on these discrepancies, advocating for equity in music recognition and compensation. Platforms and organizations are increasingly becoming aware of the necessity to fairly credit African American artists. Noteworthy examples include collaborations between established artists and emerging Black musicians aimed at promoting diversity and equity within music representation…

The Role of Music Business and Industry Practices

The music business has played a pivotal role in the appropriation of African American music throughout history. Record labels, in pursuit of profit, have often exploited the creativity and cultural expressions of African American artists, shaping music not only as a form of entertainment but also as a commercial product. Originally, many African American artists faced systemic barriers that limited their access to industry resources. Stereotypical marketing strategies were employed by major labels, often reducing the complex nuances of African American music to simplistic and palatable forms that could be marketed to wider, predominantly white audiences.

One significant aspect of this exploitation lies in the contractual practices that historically favored record companies over artists. Many African American musicians, lacking legal representation or industry knowledge, entered into agreements that stripped them of rights and royalties. These practices not only affected their financial stability but also diluted the cultural authenticity of their work. The result was a music industry structure that celebrated commercial success over artistic integrity, often sidelining the true origins of African American music forms, such as jazz, blues, and hip-hop.

In addition to contract issues, the marketing strategies employed by the music business also required scrutiny. Record labels would often emphasize the performance and aesthetics of African American artists while downplaying their cultural backgrounds and musical styles. This selective portrayal contributed to a homogenization of music styles, where the unique influences behind African American music were overlooked in favor of creating a marketable image. The financial implications of these practices have been profound, perpetuating cycles of economic disenfranchisement for African American creators while enriching industry executives and investors. Thus, the music business has historically not only facilitated but amplified the appropriation of African American music, raising critical questions about ownership, representation, and cultural legacy in today’s music landscape.

Steps to Address Past Wrongs

The appropriation of African American music has deep historical roots, and addressing the injustices that have arisen from this issue requires a multifaceted approach. First and foremost, education plays a crucial role in rectifying these past wrongs. Educational programs that focus on the contributions of African American artists to music must be implemented in schools and community organizations. These programs should emphasize not only the artistic achievements but also the cultural significance and struggles that have shaped these musical forms. By fostering a deeper understanding of African American music, society can cultivate greater respect and appreciation for its origins.

Additionally, recognizing and honoring the contributions of African American artists is essential. Establishing awards and recognition programs specifically aimed at African American musicians can elevate their visibility and celebrate their achievements. Such initiatives would serve to create a platform where the voices of these artists are not only heard but also celebrated for their unique influence on the broader music landscape. Promoting African American artists through media, festivals, and other public outlets is vital for balanced representation in the music industry.

Legislative actions also play an important role in addressing appropriation. Lawmakers should consider enacting policies that protect the rights of African American musicians, ensuring they receive due credit and compensation for their musical creations. Copyright laws could be revisited and strengthened to provide more equitable protection for artists, thus ensuring fair distribution of revenues generated from their work.

Lastly, initiatives designed to foster equitable practices within the music industry must be developed. This includes promoting diversity in decision-making positions within record labels, booking agencies, and other key industry stakeholders. By creating an inclusive environment that prioritizes African American voices, the industry can begin to rectify historical injustices and foster a more equitable musical landscape.

Contemporary Examples of Appropriation and Responses

In recent years, the issue of cultural appropriation in music has ignited significant debate, particularly concerning African American music traditions. Several high-profile instances exemplify this tension, illustrating the complexities of artistic influence and ownership. One notable example is the backlash against certain pop artists who have adopted elements of hip-hop or R&B without a deep understanding or respect for their origins. These appropriations often lead to discussions about authenticity and respect for the cultural significance of the music.

For instance, the appropriation of trap music by mainstream artists has raised questions about whether these musicians are genuinely appreciating the genre or merely adopting it for commercial gain. Artists have been criticized for using African American cultural aesthetics in their music videos, fashion, and lyrical content while lacking an authentic connection to the communities that birthed these art forms. This phenomenon has drawn attention to the need for a more extensive conversation about cultural appreciation versus appropriation, particularly in contexts where the original creators are marginalized.

Conclusion: Moving Towards Equity in Music

To create a more equitable future in the music industry, it is essential to prioritize recognition and fair compensation for African American artists. This involves not just financial remuneration but also valuing their cultural contributions and ensuring they are given rightful credit. Many African American musicians have been at the forefront of innovation, yet their contributions are often overshadowed or misappropriated by those outside the culture. Acknowledging these innovations, and ensuring they are celebrated and compensated appropriately, can foster a healthier music industry environment. by Brianca

 
 
 
 
 

One Reply to “y YESTERDAY IS STILL TODAY- MUSIC HEALING Jan., ’26/’62 ***LET IT BE- But We Just Can’t, Paul Jan. 10, ’26/’62 ***MUSIC ARTISTS EXPLOITATION & ENSLAVEMENT- Black & Blues for Generations!!! Dec. 27, 2025, by Brianca Lane Can you find out our Beloved RIPOFF MUSIC ARTISTS profiting on others? **MUSIC & ARTS for EVERYONE- not only #Billionaires and SUPERGROUP ELITES!!!! Dec. 27, ’25 by Brianca”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *