Re: collage (was:FNV-RIAA IS CRACKING DOWN)

["Thomas W¿hni" <hovard@online.no>]

Kim wrote:
>You could just as well take a sample that only existed as a single 5 
>second
>event in the original piece and then loop it in your own. By repetition 
>you
>can give something a character it didn't have before, and use that as a 
>base
>for recontextualizing the sample in a new piece. 

I fail to see that recontextualizing a piece of audio changes anything. 
The second you take the sample out of its context you`ve recontextualised 
it. This line of thought can lead to conclusions that  by simply sampling 
something you are creating something new. And repeating it doesn`t change 
the creativity and hard work of those who made it.(If anything it makes it 
more apparent.) And that is what copyright is meant to protect , right? 
It`s not meant to "foster" anything , but protect those who put original 
art out in the public domain.

So it all gets more and
>more complicated....that's what happens when you start trying to draw a 
>line
>somewhere in a completely subjective arena and try to decide what's right
>and what's wrong! the line gets moved around a lot.

This is very much in sync with what I wrote a few posts back(even though I 
probably didn`t express it well enough , as usual....). I offered that 
things like this shouldn`t be
judged with "sample-ologists" , paragraphs and microscopes. That it should 
be a musical approach: "is this sample used as a startingpoint for 
something new or a plattform to boost your own stuff on?" That said , I 
think you have to set lines because the law is so open to interpretation 
now.


>As far as sampling a whole groove goes, I think something like a James 
>Brown
>groove is a monumental piece of popular culture. For many people, those
>sounds and that groove have been an ever-present part of our environment 
>for
>most of our lives. If you wanted to make an artistic interpretaion or
>comment on that cultural event, I think that quoting that groove would be 
>a
>completely valid thing to do. Many listeners would have an immediate
>connection to that, which you could then use as a basis for your own
>statement.

forgive me for asking ,but are you saying here that a sample is validated 
by quality/cultural impact the original song has had on society? If people 
have connected with it in the past it`s alright to use it for yourself?  I 
don`t see how we could possibly make distinctions between the 
quality/popularity of sampling sources , that would open up a whole new 
can of worms. Who would decide on cultural impact? Where would the line 
go? Is it better to
sample a James Brown beat that sampling a funky John Scofield groove , 
simply because
the latter hasn`t had the popularity of the former?

 To me this is just another form of borrowing of ideas from one
>song to use in another that is very deeply ingrained in western pop and 
>folk
>music. All of the music I listen to, from early blues and jazz to the 
>latest
>drum and bass, does this constantly. Sampling just gives a new way to do 
>it,
>and huge numbers of musicians have found it a completely natural and 
>obvious
>thing to do in creating new music. 

I have to disagree with you there , Kim.  I feel there is a BIG difference 
between studying a recording and learning from a record(like jazz/blues 
players have done for all time)and
recording parts of it and use it in your own music. There has to be a line 
between interpretating a record and cutting out beit of AUDIO from it. 
I personally draw a line between the music and the AUDIO. I can steal Jim 
Hall`s licks and compositional ideas to expand creatively. This is done in 
the hope that those ideas will evolve in my mind and evolve(or corrode!) 
into sometinig of my own. But if I sample the very licks and ideas what 
then? My song will certainly take on a new course in my computer but the 
exchange of ideas that you`re promoting hasn`t taken place. I would simply 
have used his stuff to alter/improve my own. Copyright-law protects Jim 
Hall`s records , not my right to sample from them. Free use or no free use 
, I truly believe
that this is a fact. I may be wrong and I`m shure you`ll set me straight 
if I am.  :-)

The wealth of resulting music speaks for
>itself, in my opinion. The only people who seem to have a problem with it
>are those more interested in commerce and improving their revenue streams
>than they are in art and expression, those insecure enough about their
>musical proficiency to feel somehow threatened by it, or those cloaking
>their negative opinions about dance music and hip-hop in attacks on the
>techniques used.



Again , if you start taking into consideration the QUALITY of the music 
relying on samples
you open up a can of worms the size of Texas (is Texas big?). Who would 
decide what is good and bad? And when you use the word "wealth"  I trust 
it that you DON`T mean
"It`s valid to sample because there is a wealth of 
samples/samplers/samplebased songs out there."


>Once upon a time, I was totally against the whole practice of sampling,
>considering it a complete abomination. (as some of you are expressing.)

Just to set the record straight: I`m not against sampling at all. I listen 
to lots of sample-based music and use samples extensively in my own 
PC-music. None of what I`ve written
on this list is meant to be against sampling. But I do have my own ideas 
on HOW people should use them and it`s this that I`m imposing on you. :-)



Since that time, I've heard a lot of great sample based music, and had a 
lot
>of other arguments presented to me, causing me to honestly rethink tbe 
>whole
>thing and reevaluate why I had the opinions I did, and bringing me to an
>obviously different conclusion. I couldn't find any solid, supportable
>arguments to prop up my old anti-sampling tirades. 

Maybe it is as you imply here , that you are presenting solid , 
supportable arguments
for sampling, but I think you are kicking in open doors. This discussion 
about sampling has been about how to use samples in an ethical way(not 
for/against sampling) . Some might have said that "no samples is the 
ethical way" but that`s not were it started. 

Yours , Thomas         

PS. Let me add that this is the best debate I`ve seen on this list EVER. 
(besides that whole "unsubscribe-fest" a while back.)