Re: Basic intro (OT)

["JH" <jahuggett@hotmail.com>]

Its been said before - non sampling musicians appropriate material such as
much as sampling ones, though they just call it an 'influence'.
In the case of some, this does come pretty close to the theivery of the 
sort
encounted by sampler artists reusing entires chunks of other peoples songs
and selling records because of it. eg. Led Zep and Willie Dixon (I think 
I;m
correct in that reference).

I might sample someones song, multilate the sample into a loop which forms 
a
backbone for a track. You can rightly say that my song could not have
existed without me copying that persons music. This is no different than a
huge amount of music being unable to exist unless people had copied 
Hendrix,
the Beatles or 'their uncle who played violin'. Each of the influences in
turn have their dependencies and influences (we live in a connected cosmos
afterall! ;-).

Pretty straightforward, but loopers and samplers still get a bad rap, 
whilst
musicians who make sure all their influences are obscure and generally
unknown get praised for origionality :-). At least samplers who have an
obscure record collection don;t get promoted up the ranks of talent because
of that - they just get the "where did you get that from?" questions. With
music-concrete based genres, the problems of composition and style are as
big as ever.

Caliban, I like the points in your post.

Jamie



----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael LaMeyer" <mlameyer@rcn.com>
To: <Loopers-Delight@loopers-delight.com>
Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2001 2:51 PM
Subject: Re: Basic intro (OT)


> There's an aesthetic issue and an economic/social one.
<snip>