Looper's Delight Archive Top (Search)
Date Index
Thread Index
Author Index
Looper's Delight Home
Mailing List Info

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Date Index][Thread Index][Author Index]

Re: Loopers-Delight-d Digest V98 #109



>> I have to admit I have a little trouble feeling sympathy for 
>Negativland or
>> the hip-hop community claiming their creativity is being squelched by
people
>> wanting to be paid for work they are sampling.  It seems to me that if 
>you
are
>> a scavenger sifting through recorded history looking for things that 
>will
have
>> resonance you would be somewhat aware that there is a debt to be paid to
those
>> who originated the work since you are dependent upon them.  To meet 
>their
>> demands before using it doesn't seem like much to ask.  If you can meet
that
>> demand, great.  If you can't, move on.  To cry "repression" here to me 
>is
>> childish in the extreme. 

>The "demands" very rarely come from the original musicians, since the
>musicians so rarely *own* their own music.  Trading copyright for
>publishing is standard industry practice, and FAR more dispicable than
>even the most egregious sampling.  

IMHO this is a rationalisation that doesn't quite work: Label A is a 
company
owning the work of and "representing the interest of" Artist B.  Sampler C
decides (without any specific factual basis) the relationship between B 
and A
is somewhat morally questionable to A's unfair advantage, so that frees 
him up
to steal from B's work and say, "That's OK, the real injury was supposed 
to be
A, who had it coming".  Is this supposed to make him a hero to B?  I don't 
buy
it.  
 
>> Is sampling valid in music?  Of course, I would agree that it is.  But 
>if
you
>> need to sample a Robert Plant screech from a Zeppelin song, then heavily
>> process it, run it backwards, etc. until it's unrecognizable (thereby
putting
>> you in the clear from owing them anything), to me it begs the question:
why
>> not just screech into a mic for your damn self then?  If the Zeppelin
screech
>> carries with it such significant mojo that even sliced & diced beyond
>> recognition it's something you have to have, then Zeppelin deserves to 
>be
>> justly credited and/or compensated for their mojo.  I'll go one step
further:
>> this is not something you should wait to do until a team of Zeppelin
lawyers
>> comes to your door (frightening bunch, I'm sure).

>Speaking of Zeppelin credits, did they ever get around to paying Willy
>Dixon?  

Excellent point.  If they haven't they should.   I'm not trying to portray
Zeppelin or anyone as angels - if they are ripped off, they should be
justifiably compensated - if they do the ripping off they should be held
accountable.  If both apply, fine.

>There is *considerable* artistic merit to the possibilities of sampled
>re-interpretations of works deeply embedded in the collective unconscious
>of popular culture. 

Agreed.   An artist who has produced something "deeply imbedded in the
collective unconscious of popular culture" has undoubtedly done a lot of 
work
to do so.  Why, as an artist yourself, would you show such blatant 
disrespect
as to not want to acknowledge that?   Frankly, I feel this whole thing 
about
wanting to "reinterpret" this deeply ingrained stuff is all about a lot of
lazy wanna-be artists looking for coattails.  And now they want to whine
because corporate record types are making it hard for them?  Tough shit, 
they
make it hard on everybody.

In all fairness and because I don't want the gist of my argument to be
misunderstood, I feel there is some very compelling music being made with
sampling which I would not include in the above category.
 
>Remember the story i
>told earlier of the encounter between Negativland and The Edge.  He
>honestly had *no idea* that corporate lawyers purportedly representing his
>interests were making life hell for serious artists who reinterpreted his
>work.  

And if he DID?  A member of a band as ridiculously pretentious as U2 is 
going
to go to a magazine interview and open himself up to that kind of scrutiny?
Why, when you have the luxury of being perceived as the pure and innocent
artist since you can go on the record as blaiming the evil, faceless, dark
empire of the record company you've contractually chosen to represent you 
for
doing your dirty work?  "Honestly no idea"?  How do you know?  Is it
inconcieveable that an artist would paint a dishonestly altruistic picture 
of
himself in an interview for image's sake?  $20 says "The Edge" was lying 
his
ass off.  It's all over the music press, you and I and countless thousands
know about it, but somehow he's blissfully ignorant?  Spare me...a pretty
unlikely scenario, you'd have to admit.

>As for legality, and working against the wishes of others affected by art,
>i present U2.  One of their videos (don't remember which song now) was a
>marvelous act of civil disobedience.  

I live in LA, I'm very familiar with the incident.  I'm sorry, to me it 
just
looked like a gratuitous marketing ploy, shock value tactics like Madonna
grabbing her crotch.  For an act of civil disobedience to work as such it 
has
to carry a message of some political or social urgency.  A bad rock band
causing a major traffic jam because they want to film a video with complete
disregard to anyone else does not qualify.

In retrospect, Madonna grabbing her crotch seems a lot more honest:-)

Ken R