Re: Sampling debate

[KRosser414@aol.com]

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. 

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).

In the question of Fripp's appropriating the work of Hendrix and Holst, I 
read
a story once years ago about how Keith Emerson pays a share of the 
publishing
to the owners of Bela Bartok's estate for deliberately stealing from a 
piece
of his.  Emerson didn't contest it and has complied ever since.  Bartok 
still
doesn't get a writing credit but the money is going where it should.   
Fripp
may or may not be in a similar situation with the Holst estate.  

You may find a way to use it legally against the creator's wishes.  How
someone could do that and keep a clear conscience is a bit beyond me.  
This is
not a legal argument I'm making but a moral one.  I seriously, seriously
question the integrity of someone who can't take an ethical stand on an 
issue
independent of a legal one.  

ken R