Re: Sampling debate

[Dave Stagner <dstagner@icarus.net>]

On Thu, 27 Aug 1998 KRosser414@aol.com wrote:

> 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.  
 
> 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?  

There is *considerable* artistic merit to the possibilities of sampled
re-interpretations of works deeply embedded in the collective unconscious
of popular culture.  One of my dreams, if i can find the time and the
right bandmates, is an acoustic guitar/standup bass/hand percussion trio
playing nothing but radically reinterpreted covers.  Just simple things,
like my unplugged rendition of Ministry's "Burning Inside", can really
resonant with irony.
 
> 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.  

Again, are the "creator's wishes" always involved?  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.  

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.  They went to LA, and had every radio
and tv station in town announce a free public concert in a park, THAT DAY.
No permits, no permission, no nothing - they just set up in the park to
play.  Thousands of people showed up.  The police were caught in a
situation where they risked a riot if they tried to stop it.  :} 

-dave

Practice beautiful randomness and act kind of senseless.
<dstagner@icarus.net>